Marketplaces Are Being Held Accountable for Counterfeits. Brands Still Need Their Own Proof.

Online platforms are facing greater pressure to prevent counterfeit sales. But removing suspicious listings is not the same as proving that a physical product is authentic.

In July, the European Commission fined AliExpress €550 million for failing to adequately assess and reduce the risks associated with illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products sold through its platform.

The decision represents one of the clearest signs yet that governments expect online marketplaces to take a more active role in protecting consumers and legitimate businesses. According to the Commission, AliExpress did not have effective systems for detecting illegal products, enforcing penalties against offending sellers or preventing counterfeit goods from reappearing. Its brand authorization system could also be bypassed by sellers who deliberately miscategorized their products.

AliExpress has been ordered to take corrective action and submit a plan to the Commission by October 20, 2026. The company has disputed the size of the fine while stating that it has made significant investments in product safety and risk management.

The case is important, but not only because of the size of the penalty. It exposes a fundamental challenge facing every marketplace, retailer and brand: identifying a suspicious listing is one thing. Determining whether the physical product being sold is genuine is another.

The counterfeit problem extends beyond the listing

Marketplaces can review seller information, product descriptions, pricing, customer complaints and patterns of suspicious activity. They can remove listings, suspend accounts and prevent known offenders from returning.

These measures matter. However, counterfeiters have become highly skilled at reproducing the digital signals consumers and platforms use to judge legitimacy.

Product photographs can be taken from an authorized website. Packaging can be copied. Certificates can be reproduced. Serial numbers can be duplicated across hundreds of items. A seller can also advertise a genuine product and ship something entirely different.

That means a product can appear legitimate throughout the online transaction while remaining completely disconnected from the manufacturer that supposedly produced it.

The European Commission’s findings illustrate this gap. Its investigation found that products could remain available for weeks after being identified and that sellers were able to work around platform controls. The Commission also found that recommendation and advertising systems sometimes helped expose more consumers to illegal products before they were removed. (European Commission)

The technology platform controls the listing. The brand, however, must still establish the authenticity of the product.

Enforcement is increasing, but so is the volume

Recent border seizures demonstrate how quickly counterfeit goods continue to move through international logistics systems.

During the summer of 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in Louisville reportedly intercepted 875 counterfeit Audemars Piguet watches arriving from Hong Kong. If authentic, the watches would have carried a combined retail value exceeding $1.25 billion. The most recent shipment, seized on July 31, contained another 300 watches destined for New York and other locations. (New York Post)

These seizures are significant, but they also raise an uncomfortable question: how many similar shipments were not intercepted?

Customs agencies and marketplaces operate at an enormous scale. They cannot physically inspect every package or conduct an in-depth examination of every product listing. Counterfeiters understand this and distribute goods across smaller shipments, multiple sellers, new accounts and changing sales channels.

Enforcement can disrupt the movement of counterfeit products, but brands should not assume that enforcement alone will prevent those products from reaching customers, collectors or resale markets.

Authentication must begin with the genuine product

The strongest evidence of authenticity does not come from the seller’s description. It comes from the product itself.

A brand protection strategy should establish an identifying feature during manufacturing, assembly, finishing or packaging. That feature should be difficult to reproduce, remain connected to the genuine product and provide a reliable method of examination when authenticity is questioned.

This changes the conversation from asking whether a product “looks real” to determining whether it contains an identifying feature that could only have been applied by the authorized manufacturer.

For high-value products, limited editions, collectibles and components, covert authentication can be especially valuable. A hidden mark does not tell counterfeiters what to copy or where to look. It can remain with the product even when packaging, labels or supporting documents have been separated from it.

DNA Technologies’ DNA Matrix™ security taggant can be incorporated into inks, coatings, dyes, polymers, resins, labels and other materials, depending on the product and manufacturing process. It creates a covert physical identifier that can later be examined when a product’s origin is challenged.

Rather than depending solely on something visible and easily reproduced, the genuine product carries its own evidence.

Brands need evidence that works across channels

Products rarely remain within one controlled sales environment for their entire lifecycle. They may move from an authorized retailer into a resale marketplace, auction house, private collection, repair facility, distributor or insurance claim.

At each stage, the person evaluating the product may have access to different information. The original invoice may be missing. Packaging may have been discarded. A certificate may have become separated from the item. The original retailer may no longer be involved.

A product-level authentication feature can remain relevant throughout those changes.

This is particularly important for goods that appreciate in value or are frequently resold. Watches, sports memorabilia, artwork, limited-edition apparel, musical instruments and other collectibles may pass through several owners over many years. The further they move from the original sale, the more difficult documentary verification becomes.

Permanent physical authentication gives brands, investigators and authorized experts another layer of evidence when the paper trail is incomplete or disputed.

Marketplace accountability does not replace brand responsibility

The AliExpress decision may lead to stronger controls across major e-commerce platforms. It may also encourage other regulators to place greater responsibility on marketplaces that allow counterfeit products to reach consumers.

That would be a positive development for legitimate brands. But it should not be mistaken for a complete brand protection strategy.

Platforms can remove a seller. Customs officers can seize a shipment. Lawyers can pursue an infringer. None of these actions automatically provides a scalable method for distinguishing every genuine product from every counterfeit one.

Brands still need to create that distinction themselves.

The organizations best prepared for the next generation of counterfeit trade will be those that combine marketplace monitoring, legal enforcement, supply-chain controls and product-level authentication. Together, those layers create something counterfeiters find much harder to reproduce: evidence that begins with the genuine product and remains with it wherever it goes.