This bill amends 19 U.S.C. 1628a (Section 628A of the Tariff Act of 1930) to widen the range of nonpublic information U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may share in suspected intellectual-property-rights (IPR) violations. It changes the threshold language to “has a reasonable suspicion,” adds packing materials and containers to the set of inspectable items, and expressly authorizes CBP to pass along nonpublic data that originates with online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, and other supply-chain participants.
Practically, the bill creates a statutory pathway for brand owners and other interested parties to receive supply-chain and platform-generated intelligence that CBP holds, and requires CBP to notify recipients about what was transmitted under department regulations. It also lets the Commissioner designate additional recipients with an interest in the merchandise, increasing flexibility but concentrating implementing detail in agency rulemaking and discretionary determinations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 628A to (1) raise the evidentiary language to “reasonable suspicion,” (2) expand the categories of physical and documentary material CBP may use or share (including packing materials and containers), and (3) authorize CBP to provide nonpublic platform- and logistics-generated information to rights holders and other parties, with a statutory notice requirement and delegated regulations.
Who It Affects
Brand owners and IP enforcement counsel who pursue cross-border IPR enforcement; online marketplaces, express consignment operators, and freight forwarders that generate or hold shipment and listing data; importers and other supply‑chain participants who may be designated as recipients; and CBP, which must administer the new disclosure and notification duties.
Why It Matters
The change unlocks richer supply‑chain and platform data for private enforcement and administrative actions, shifting where investigatory intelligence can originate and travel. That raises practical questions about confidentiality, cross‑border data law compliance, and operational burden for both private intermediaries and CBP.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites key lines in Section 628A to change when and what Customs can share in cases of suspected IPR violations. First, it swaps the word “suspects” for the phrase “has a reasonable suspicion,” which frames CBP’s decision point as an evidentiary standard rather than a simple belief.
Second, the statute’s enumerated material that CBP may inspect and share is broadened to include packing materials and containers in addition to merchandise, packaging, and labels.
Most consequentially, the bill adds an explicit authorization for CBP to provide nonpublic information that was generated by — or provided to — online marketplaces, similar market platforms, express consignment carriers, freight forwarders, or otherwise by entities that facilitate sale or importation. That language covers a wide range of digital and logistical records: listings and listing metadata, platform-provided images, shipment manifests, tracking data, and communications that the platform or logistics provider furnished to, shared with, or that CBP obtained.
The statute also requires CBP to notify the person who receives such nonpublic information about what was transmitted, with the Secretary directed to issue implementing regulations.Finally, the bill expands who can receive information under subsection (b) by adding a catch‑all allowing the Commissioner to identify “any other party with an interest in the merchandise.” That gives CBP discretion to send data beyond traditional rights holders to importers, consignees, brokers, or other named stakeholders. Because several important details—who qualifies as a person with interest, how CBP will sanitize or protect confidential business information, and the content of the notification requirement—are left to agency regulations and the Commissioner’s determinations, much of the real-world impact will depend on implementing guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 628A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1628a) to require that CBP act when it “has a reasonable suspicion” of IPR violations.
It adds “packing materials” and “containers” to the list of physical items and associated images CBP may use and share in investigations.
CBP may provide recipients with nonpublic information generated by online marketplaces, market platforms, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, or other entities involved in sale or importation if that information was provided to, shared with, or obtained by CBP.
When CBP transmits the nonpublic information described above, the agency must notify the recipient of the information transmitted, subject to regulations the Secretary will issue.
Subsection (b) is amended to permit the Commissioner to designate “any other party with an interest in the merchandise” as a permissible recipient of shared information.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Clarifies the standard for CBP action: 'reasonable suspicion'
The bill replaces the verb ‘suspects’ with the phrase ‘has a reasonable suspicion’ in the opening language of subsection (a). That change signals a clearer, arguably higher, evidentiary posture for CBP before it avails itself of the sharing authority. In practice, CBP will need to document or justify its suspicion to align with this textual standard, and adjudicators or courts could read that wording as constraining purely speculative queries.
Expands the catalog of inspectable items to include packing materials and containers
Amendments to paragraph (1) insert packing materials and containers into the list of things CBP can image, inspect, and share. That brings peripheral handling and shipment items—inner boxes, pallets, dunnage, and external containers—into the statutory ambit, which can yield additional clues about origin, routing, and co‑shipment that merchants and rights holders find useful for tracing counterfeits.
Authorizes sharing of platform- and logistics-generated nonpublic data and mandates recipient notification
Paragraph (3) explicitly authorizes CBP to provide nonpublic information about merchandise that was generated by online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, or other entities that participate in sale or importation—so long as that information was provided to, shared with, or obtained by CBP. Paragraph (4) adds a statutory duty to notify recipients of what was transmitted and vests the Secretary with rulemaking authority to refine notification procedures, information protection, and any permissible redaction standards.
Expands eligible recipients to ‘any other party with an interest’ as determined by the Commissioner
The bill tacks a discretionary clause onto subsection (b) allowing the Commissioner to identify additional recipients who have an interest in the merchandise. That opens the door for importers, consignees, brokers, or other stakeholders to receive CBP-held intelligence, but it also delegates significant gatekeeping authority to the Commissioner and does not specify criteria for when or how that designation will be applied.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Trade across all five countries.
Explore Trade in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Brand owners and IP enforcement counsel — Gain statutory access to platform and logistics data (listings, images, shipment records) held by CBP, improving ability to locate and document counterfeit supply chains and to pursue civil or administrative remedies.
- Importers and legitimate supply‑chain actors — Can be notified of transmitted information and, if designated by the Commissioner, receive intelligence that may help resolve disputes or clear shipments more quickly.
- Customs and law enforcement — Obtain broader statutory authority to aggregate marketplace and freight data, which can improve detection and targeting of illicit trade across platforms and logistics chains.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online marketplaces and logistics providers (express consignment operators, freight forwarders) — Face increased pressure to preserve and, in practice, make available detailed transactional and shipment data that may become the subject of CBP disclosures or enforcement inquiries.
- CBP (operational units and the Office of the Commissioner) — Must build procedures to evaluate marketplace/forwarder data, determine recipient eligibility, manage confidentiality concerns, and implement the statutorily required notifications and any Secretary-prescribed regulations.
- Importers and third parties not accustomed to disclosure — Risk exposure of commercially sensitive routing or supplier information when designated as recipients or when their shipments generate platform/forwarder‑derived data shared with others.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill aims to strengthen IPR enforcement by widening access to platform and logistics intelligence, but doing so risks exposing commercially sensitive supply‑chain and seller data and transferring significant operational and legal burdens to private intermediaries and CBP—forcing a trade‑off between investigative power and protection of confidentiality and privacy.
The bill centralizes a lot of substantive discretion in agency hands—both in the Commissioner’s power to name additional recipients and in the Secretary’s delegated rulemaking authority for notification and handling of nonpublic information. That means the statutory phrases (for example, what qualifies as ‘nonpublic information generated by an online marketplace’) will be interpreted and operationalized largely through guidance, memos, and possibly case‑by‑case practice rather than rigid statutory definitions.
Implementing rules will determine whether platform-generated metadata, seller contact info, or purchaser identifiers are shareable.
There is a real trade‑off between better enforcement intelligence and protection of confidential business information. The statute does not set out a clear process for redaction, challenge, or remedy where a platform or shipper claims the disclosed material is a trade secret or otherwise protected under privacy or foreign data‑protection laws.
Cross‑border data transfer constraints (e.g., EU/UK privacy rules, if foreign platforms are involved) could complicate CBP’s ability to accept or disclose certain records, raising compliance burdens for platforms and potential legal conflicts. Finally, the shift from a looser “suspects” standard to “reasonable suspicion” improves defensibility but may also slow proactive information-sharing unless CBP clarifies internal thresholds and documentation practices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.