Introduction: INTA stakeholders address future of brand protection amid emerging tech challenges 

As digital innovation accelerates, brand owners and brand protection professionals are increasingly focused on how emerging technologies are reshaping the landscape of brand protection and consumer trust. From the rapid spread of AI-generated content to the widespread accessibility of 3D printing and the growing influence of blockchain, companies are navigating an increasingly complex and evolving threat environment.

This was the timely and pressing theme for this year’s INTA Anti-counterfeiting Workshop, titled: Cracking the Counterfeit Code: Emerging Technologies & Collaboration – The Future of Brand Protection.

For the past decade, INTA has hosted its Anti-counterfeiting Workshop in conjunction with its Annual Meeting. This dynamic and interactive forum brings together more than 180 stakeholders – including brand owners, law enforcement officials and government representatives – to collaborate, share insights and develop strategies to combat counterfeiting on a global scale. This year’s workshop took place in San Diego, California in May 2025.This article shares the INTA Anti-counterfeiting Committee’s findings.

According to the OECD’s 2021 report “Global Trade in Fakes: A Worrying Threat”, the market in international counterfeit and pirated goods reached an estimated US$464 billion in 2019 – about 2.5% of world trade – while counterfeit imports into the European Union alone accounted for up to €119 billion (roughly 5.8% of total EU imports).

As OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann explained earlier this year:

[I]llicit trade threatens public safety, undermines IP rights and hampers economic growth, and the risks could increase as counterfeiters leverage new technologies and techniques to avoid detection.

According to another OECD report published earlier this year, the global trade in fake goods reached US$467 billion, posing risks to consumer safety and compromising intellectual property.

As counterfeiting tactics become more sophisticated, it is increasingly difficult for consumers to recognise the threat while shopping for goods – particularly online. Many remain unaware that an item is counterfeit until after wearing, using or even ingesting it, potentially exposing themselves to serious health and safety risks. The pressing question is, how can brand owners and other stakeholders collaborate and strategically leverage their resources to address emerging technologies and combat counterfeiting across online platforms? The answer lies in bringing together the most knowledgeable and experienced minds in anti-counterfeiting, uniting diverse perspectives to develop smarter, more agile solutions. Before exploring potential solutions, it is crucial to first examine the core challenges of online enforcement in view of emerging technologies and how these challenges are causing headaches for brand owners.

Online players and game changers: emerging technologies

Traditionally, brand protection has focused on monitoring physical counterfeits and enforcing trademark rights in established marketplaces. However, emerging technologies have dramatically expanded the vectors of infringement.

AI tools

This now ubiquitous technology is a double-edged sword. While it offers powerful tools for brand monitoring and enforcement, it also facilitates new forms of infringement.

‘Bad’ AI

AI can rapidly produce brand names, logos, product images and marketing content that closely imitate brand owners’ intellectual property, significantly amplifying the volume of infringements and producing counterfeit listings that are increasingly convincing to consumers. This intensifies the ‘whack-a-mole’ challenge for brand owners – when one infringing listing goes down, multiple new listings quickly emerge to take its place.

‘Good’ AI

One of the best ways to counter the rising volume of AI-generated counterfeit listings is to fight fire with fire – by leveraging AI-powered monitoring and takedown solutions. Many brand owners are successfully deploying advanced tools (eg, image recognition technology) that go beyond keyword searches to detect counterfeit listings even when brand names are not specified. These AI tools enable searches based on images and logos, making it easier to identify infringing listings. By inputting known counterfeit indicators (eg, label misspellings or packaging inconsistencies) into their monitoring platforms, brand owners empower AI systems to spot suspicious listings and websites, automatically generating draft takedown notices to swiftly remove infringing content.

Deepfakes

The rise of deepfake technology, enabled by generative AI, poses a particularly insidious threat. Malicious actors can now produce hyper-realistic fake videos, audio clips and images of executives, products or marketing campaigns to spread disinformation, commit fraud or damage brand reputation. These deepfakes can go viral within hours, inflicting serious reputational and financial damage long before they are identified and removed. This form of brand misuse is an escalating concern and underscores the urgent need for robust internal protocols and continued investment in advanced detection and verification technologies.

3D printing

The widespread accessibility of 3D printing has effectively democratised manufacturing, enabling individuals and unauthorised entities to replicate designs with ease. This shift poses serious risks for brand owners, including revenue loss, brand dilution and increased infringement. Traditional IP enforcement methods often struggle to keep pace, as digital design files can be easily shared, altered and distributed across borders. The decentralised and often anonymous nature of 3D printing further complicates enforcement, making it difficult to establish jurisdiction and hold infringers accountable.

Blockchain and NFTs

While blockchain offers a promising solution for product authentication and supply-chain transparency, the emergence of NFTs also introduces new complexities. Brands are exploring NFTs for digital assets, but the lack of clear legal frameworks around their IP rights and the potential for unauthorised minting of branded NFTs present new avenues for infringement.

Private-messaging platforms

Private-messaging platforms offer features like end-to-end encryption, disappearing messages and the ability to create anonymous accounts, all of which make it challenging for law enforcement and brand protection teams to monitor conversations, identify sellers and track the flow of counterfeit goods. Counterfeiters exploit these features to connect directly with potential buyers, sidestepping the stricter moderation and oversight found on mainstream e-commerce and social media platforms. This enables counterfeiters to build customer relationships and offer illicit goods with minimal risk of detection. The sheer volume of users and messages, combined with the encrypted nature of the communications, makes it exceptionally difficult – if not impossible – to monitor activity and transactions. Even when bad actors are identified and removed, they can reappear almost instantly under new identities.

Hidden links

Hidden links have emerged as a popular tactic in the counterfeit trade, enabling bad actors to evade detection on public-facing platforms. Counterfeiters often promote illicit products through social media posts or misleading ads, then direct interested buyers to private-messaging apps like WeChat, WhatsApp or Telegram to finalise the transaction. These platforms offer built-in features, such as product catalogues, shopping carts and integrated payment systems. While designed to support legitimate businesses, these tools can be exploited by counterfeiters to offer streamlined, underground marketplaces.

Most pressing concerns raised at the workshop

Complexities of private-messaging platforms 

Among these technologies, private-messaging platforms stood out as a particularly urgent concern among participants at the Anti-counterfeiting Workshop, prompting in-depth conversation and warranting closer examination.

These apps (eg, WeChat, WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal) have become increasingly attractive to counterfeiters due to their closed-group environments, which make monitoring and enforcement exceptionally challenging. Unlike traditional e-commerce platforms, these apps provide no clear metrics or visibility into sales activity or inventory levels. Gaining insight into these networks requires significant time, investigative resources and specialised tactics.

Many counterfeit operations within these channels are deliberately short-lived, appearing briefly before vanishing. One workshop participant noted: “Monitoring these channels is very difficult, and they are often short-term in nature, making it hard to capture or understand the scope of the problem.” Investigative and enforcement efforts are further complicated by ethical concerns.

Engaging with private groups often involves undercover tactics and false pretenses, raising difficult questions about privacy, legality and best practices. For brand owners and enforcement professionals, navigating these spaces requires both strategic caution and technological sophistication.

Livestreaming and hidden links

Workshop participants also called out livestreaming and hidden links as emerging threats. Counterfeiters exploit platforms like TikTok Shop, and live auction channels can quickly list products and vanish once the sale has ended. This fleeting nature severely limits the timeline for investigation and takedown.

Verifying counterfeit products during live sales is particularly challenging given the lack of detailed product information, obscured branding and minimal transparency around transactions. Hidden links are often shared within fragmented buyer communities, making tracking and enforcement nearly impossible without coordinated action. As one participant noted: “It’s incredibly hard to stay ahead of counterfeiters when listings can vanish in an instant.” Without coordinated real-time action, enforcement in these fast-moving spaces remains a daunting task.

Cross-platform challenges and fragmented operations 

Participants also highlighted the increasing prevalence of cross-platform counterfeit operations. Infringers increasingly utilise a decentralised approach, directing traffic between forums, social media platforms and private-messaging apps to evade detection. For example, Reddit was noted as a popular forum on which counterfeiters can share tips and direct potential buyers to hidden product links. This fragmented ecosystem makes it extremely difficult for brand owners and enforcement agencies to trace the full transaction chain – particularly when sales are completed off platform – leaving no visible trail of payment or logistics. The workshop reinforced the urgent need for stronger collaboration among brand owners, online platforms and law enforcement agencies to address these complex fast-evolving threats with coordinated and proactive strategies.

Resource and ethical constraints 

Workshop participants acknowledged the substantial resource demands involved in effectively monitoring non-traditional platforms. Nearly all brand owners and enforcement agencies struggle to allocate adequate personnel, technology and funding to keep pace with the scale and speed of counterfeiting. Adding to the challenge is the need to balance resource deployment with ethical considerations – particularly when engaging with closed-group operations, which often require covert or sensitive tactics. These constraints highlight the need for innovative approaches and cross-sector collaboration to develop scalable and responsible solutions. Non-traditional e-commerce challenges

The speed and anonymity of non-traditional e-commerce was emphasised. Unlike traditional marketplaces with robust transparency and vetting procedures, these emerging channels are driven by viral content and niche online communities, allowing fake listings to spread rapidly and evade detection. The lack of clear seller identities and verification processes make it easier for counterfeiters to fly under the radar and quickly pivot. “Things move a lot faster and are harder to track on non-traditional platforms,” says one workshop participant.

Lack of streamlined enforcement mechanisms 

Participants observed that enforcement mechanisms on non-traditional platforms are often fragmented and inconsistent, and they lack standardisation. In contrast to traditional marketplaces – which typically offer clear policies, reporting frameworks and established points of contact – emerging platforms present a patchwork of enforcement challenges. Brand owners frequently encounter opaque processes, limited cooperation and minimal transparency, all of which hinder timely and effective takedown efforts. This enforcement gap allows counterfeiters to quickly adapt and stay one step ahead of detection. 

Effective ways to target non-traditional e-commerce

As noted above, perhaps the best way to tackle the challenges posed by emerging technologies is to bring together the most knowledgeable and experienced minds in brand protection. During the workshop, participants did exactly that – they collaborated to identify practical and forward-looking solutions. Several key strategies emerged from those discussions.

Vendor partnerships and AI tools

Workshop participants identified external vendor partnerships and AI-powered technologies as essential tools for monitoring non-traditional platforms at scale. Vendors specialising in online detection and enforcement are developing increasingly sophisticated solutions to identify counterfeit listings across fragmented and fast-moving channels. AI-powered systems that analyse behavioural patterns, detect anomalies and flag suspicious activity were frequently cited as effective components of a modern enforcement programme.

Manual and collaborative approaches

While technological solutions are essential to modern brand protection, workshop participants emphasised that traditional methods (eg, manual searches and direct engagement with platform operators) continue to play a critical role. These hands-on approaches can uncover nuanced or platform-specific infringement tactics that automated systems may overlook.

Several participants also recommended periodic vendor rotation, suggesting that switching enforcement vendors every two years can help brand owners stay ahead of evolving threats and technological advancements. This strategy promotes fresh perspectives, ensures access to the latest tools and reduces overreliance on a single methodology.

Further, cultivating direct relationships with platform operators and leveraging platform-specific intelligence were cited as highly effective practices. Such collaborations not only improve responsiveness to takedown requests but also foster a deeper understanding of each platform’s unique enforcement landscape, ultimately enhancing overall outcomes.

Data utilisation and internal insights

Workshop participants underscored the need to utilise internal business data (eg, product returns, warranty claims and customer service reports) to detect patterns of counterfeiting. User-generated reports of suspicious activity – particularly those shared on platforms like WeChat – were highlighted as valuable intelligence sources for identifying and mapping counterfeit networks. Data-driven strategies were deemed essential for building targeted enforcement actions and optimising resource allocation.

Participants further highlighted the increasing relevance of digital identity frameworks and seller verification protocols, such as know-your-customer systems. These tools were recognised as critical advancements in enhancing accountability, improving traceability and ultimately deterring counterfeit activity across digital marketplaces.

Integrating new technologies into brand protection strategies

Effectively integrating new technologies into broader brand protection programs requires a holistic and strategic approach. Brand owners must prioritise enforcement by platform and region, aligning initiatives with operational budgets to ensure efficient resource allocation and maximum impact. Throughout the discussions, the importance of regularly assessing enforcement priorities and adapting strategies to emerging threats was repeatedly highlighted.

Collaboration also emerged as a recurring theme. Participants pointed to joint enforcement actions and intelligence-sharing initiatives among brands, platforms and law enforcement agencies as key methods for scaling efforts across fragmented online environments. Real-world examples of successful partnerships underscored the value of trust-building, transparency and shared resources, reinforcing the notion that no single entity can address the global counterfeiting threat alone. 

Case studies: successful enforcement efforts and joint-action challenges

Participants emphasised the importance of moving beyond online monitoring to pursue offline enforcement, leveraging test purchases, customs intelligence and on-the-ground investigations to disrupt counterfeit supply chains. This shift is significantly bolstered by technology, such as trackable product tags, advanced analytics and AI-powered detection tools, all of which enhance investigative precision and efficiency.

Transition from online to offline

Many workshop participants shared compelling case studies illustrating the transition from online intelligence gathering to offline enforcement actions. One brand owner detailed how its team conducted targeted test purchases, collecting critical evidence that culminated in coordinated law enforcement raids and the successful dismantling of a counterfeit operation. Another described leveraging customs data to trace the movement of counterfeits and identifying fulfilment centres tied to broader counterfeit networks, which ultimately led to criminal prosecutions and long-term disruption of illicit supply chains.

Leveraging technology in investigations

Technological advancements (eg, trackable tags, NFC authentication and AI detection tools) were widely cited as game changers in enhancing enforcement efforts. “Using trackable tags has made it easier to determine whether a product is counterfeit, streamlining our investigations,” shares one participant. By integrating these tools into broader brand protection strategies, brand owners are significantly improving the precision and efficiency of their enforcement operations. These innovations reduce the time, cost and complexity of investigations, enabling faster identification of counterfeit products and more effective responses to emerging threats.

Challenges in joint actions

While collaborative efforts were widely praised, some acknowledged the inherent hurdles in aligning interests among brand owners.

Cross-border enforcement efforts are complicated by divergent legal frameworks, jurisdictional inconsistencies and varying levels of available resources. Additionally, the high costs associated with joint actions were cited as a barrier to sustaining long-term collaboration, underscoring the need for more structured frameworks and shared funding models to support collective enforcement strategies.

Measuring success in brand protection

Workshop participants outlined several key performance indicators for measuring the success of enforcement efforts, including the number of seizures conducted, monetary damages recovered and the overall disruption of counterfeit networks. Metrics such as quantities of seized goods and the outcomes of enforcement actions – particularly those achieved through platform collaboration – were highlighted as critical benchmarks of an effective strategy.

Participants also stressed the importance of evaluating the long-term impact of enforcement actions on counterfeit supply chains, rather than focusing solely on short-term wins. Additionally, sharing enforcement successes with consumers was discussed as a valuable way to build trust, reinforce brand integrity and signal a strong commitment to consumer safety.

The road ahead 

Safeguarding intellectual property and maintaining brand integrity in this new era demands a proactive, multi-layered approach that integrates cutting-edge technologies with both traditional and adaptive legal strategies. INTA’s 2025 Anti-counterfeiting Workshop offered critical insights into combatting counterfeiting across non-traditional e-commerce platforms. Participants emphasised the growing need for cross-sector collaboration, technical innovation and strategic allocation of resources to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated bad actors.

The next workshop is scheduled for May 2026 in London, England. It will once more provide a forum for stakeholders to deepen their expertise, exchange best practices and advance coordinated enforcement efforts in the global fight against counterfeiting.