Why the U.S. Notorious Markets List Tells Only Half the Story
Each year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative publishes a report known as the Notorious Markets List — a global inventory of online and physical marketplaces reported to facilitate large-scale counterfeiting or piracy.
The 2024 edition named 38 online and 19 physical markets that, according to the study, “reportedly engage in or facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy.” It’s not a legal indictment; it’s a diplomatic tool — Washington’s way of spotlighting the economic cost of counterfeits and nudging countries and platforms toward better enforcement.
Yet for brands on the front lines of the counterfeit fight, the Notorious Markets List only tells part of the story. Many have built private watchlists of their own — internal dashboards that track risky platforms, seller networks, and high-volume repeat offenders.
Together, these public and private lists reflect how the battle against counterfeit trade has evolved: from public diplomacy to data-driven investigation.
A Public List with Global Weight
The Notorious Markets List has become a reference point for policymakers and journalists, but it’s also a source of reputational risk for companies that appear on it.
China’s Taobao, part of the Alibaba Group, has had a long and eventful history with the list. Once known as a major hub for counterfeit luxury goods, Taobao made significant progress after Alibaba invested heavily in brand-protection technology and faster takedown systems under pressure from brands and regulators. Those reforms led to its removal for a time, but the platform has since reappeared on the list, underscoring the ongoing challenges of combating counterfeits at scale.
A 2025 article in the South China Morning Post reported that Taobao was now battling a new wave of AI-generated fake product photos designed to evade detection systems. And a Jing Daily report chronicled how luxury labels have long struggled to keep up with counterfeiters’ speed and creativity, even on platforms making good-faith efforts.
The takeaway is clear: the Notorious Markets List creates pressure, but lasting progress depends on continuous, coordinated action between brands, governments, and platforms.
The Global Counterfeit Economy
According to a joint study by the OECD and the European Union Intellectual Property Office, counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for about 2.3 percent of global trade in 2021 — roughly $467 billion in fake products crossing borders.
That figure isn’t limited to handbags or watches. It includes counterfeit pharmaceuticals, automotive parts, and electronics — products that can pose real safety risks. What began as an intellectual-property issue has become a public-safety concern.
The same OECD study found that small-parcel shipping and postal networks have become key distribution channels for counterfeits. By splitting shipments into thousands of low-value packages, counterfeiters can bypass customs checks that would flag large containers.
In other words, the counterfeit economy has evolved to exploit both global logistics and local enforcement limits.
From Switzerland to Shenzhen: Lessons from the Watch Industry
Few industries illustrate this complexity better than Swiss watchmaking.
An OECD analysis of the Swiss watch sector found that China accounted for nearly 54 percent of counterfeit watches seized worldwide in 2020 and 2021. Hong Kong and the Netherlands served as key transit hubs.
The report shows how counterfeit goods pass through multiple jurisdictions — often changing packaging, labeling, and online identities — before reaching the buyer. By the time an infringing product surfaces online, its supply chain may already span three continents.
This underscores a key limitation of the Notorious Markets List: it can name a market, but it cannot untangle the supply chain that feeds it.
Private Lists: The Hidden Engine for Enforcement
For global brands, the real action happens far from the headlines.
Most maintain private “Notorious Markets” — internal databases of platforms, seller aliases, and regions prioritized by risk. These watchlists often include marketplaces, social media channels, and even live-streaming apps where counterfeit trade thrives.
The goal isn’t to shame or name publicly; it’s to operate efficiently. Data from brand monitoring tools, customs records, and takedown history feed into these lists to guide investigators and legal teams.
A fashion house might monitor resale platforms for repeat infringers. A consumer-electronics company might track unauthorized “refurbished” sellers. Unlike the government’s annual report, these internal lists update daily — often faster than counterfeiters can pivot.
Transparency Laws Begin to Bridge the Gap
Governments are beginning to recognize that anonymity fuels the counterfeit economy.
In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA), now requires large online marketplaces to verify and, in many cases, disclose basic seller identification data. Platforms must ensure that professional sellers provide verifiable business credentials — a step that makes it harder for repeat infringers to hide behind new accounts.
In the United States, a similar idea underpins the INFORM Consumers Act. The law requires marketplaces like Amazon, eBay, and Facebook Marketplace to verify and display key seller details — including names, business addresses, and tax IDs — for high-volume third-party sellers. The Federal Trade Commission can now fine platforms that fail to comply.
Together, these laws begin to close the transparency gap. They don’t eliminate counterfeits, but they shift responsibility: marketplaces can no longer claim they “don’t know” who their sellers are.
Legislation Still Moves Slowly
While these are important steps, other legislative efforts have struggled to keep pace.
The SHOP SAFE Act of 2024, which would strengthen liability for platforms that fail to screen counterfeit goods, was introduced in Congress last year but remains at the committee stage.
Supporters say the bill would create stronger incentives for proactive screening and collaboration between marketplaces and rights-holders. Critics worry it could impose heavy compliance costs or discourage small online sellers. For now, the bill remains a proposal — another sign of how slowly legislation can move compared to digital commerce.
Counterfeiters can launch a new storefront in minutes; a bill can take years to reach a vote. The lag highlights why enforcement today often relies more on technology, cooperation, and private data-sharing than on statute alone.
From Awareness to Action
The Notorious Markets List remains a valuable instrument. It shines light on problem areas and signals where governments and brands should focus attention. But as counterfeit trade becomes more decentralized—shifting from major marketplaces to smaller platforms, social commerce, and encrypted channels—traditional naming-and-spotlighting has limited reach.
Real progress now happens in the overlap between policy and practice:
Public lists raise awareness and diplomatic pressure.
Transparency laws make sellers traceable.
Private watchlists connect patterns and detect repeat offenders faster than regulators can.
Insights-driven platforms like Hubstream help brands centralize those signals—linking marketplace listings, enforcement records, and investigation data into one holistic view.
For brand-protection teams, the challenge is to link those layers—to turn public policy into operational intelligence. Until then, counterfeiters will continue to exploit the space between government reports and real-time enforcement.