This bill amends section 628A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1628a). It replaces the current subjective trigger for information sharing with a ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’ standard, expands the kinds of information CBP may disclose to include data generated by online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, packing materials and shipping containers, and authorizes disclosures to additional parties the Commissioner deems to have an interest in the merchandise.
The changes aim to give rights holders and other interested parties clearer access to nonpublic import-related data while tightening the threshold for when CBP may share information. That combination alters the balance between improving IP enforcement through richer supply-chain intelligence and increasing exposure of commercial and personal data — and it hands substantial discretion to CBP’s leadership on who gets access.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises 19 U.S.C. 1628a to (1) change the disclosure trigger from ‘‘suspects’’ to ‘‘has a reasonable suspicion,’’ (2) allow CBP to share nonpublic information derived from online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders and similar actors (including packing materials and shipping containers), and (3) permit disclosure to ‘‘any other party with an interest in the merchandise’’ as designated by the Commissioner.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include intellectual-property owners and their counsel who request information, online marketplaces and logistics providers that generate or hold import-related data, importers and customs brokers, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as the decisionmaker and data custodian.
Why It Matters
The bill both tightens and expands enforcement tools: a higher evidentiary phrase may reduce frivolous disclosures, while explicit authorization to release marketplace and logistics data could substantially improve rights holders’ ability to trace infringing goods — raising compliance, privacy, and confidentiality issues for platforms and shippers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three discrete edits to the statute governing when and to whom CBP can share information about suspected intellectual property infringements at the border. First, it replaces the plain-language trigger ‘‘suspects’’ with the phrasing ‘‘has a reasonable suspicion,’’ importing an objectively framed threshold CBP must meet before disclosing information.
That change encourages CBP to document a factual basis before providing sensitive data to outsiders.
Second, the bill specifies the types and sources of nonpublic information CBP may provide. For the first time the statute names data generated by online marketplaces and ‘‘other similar market platform[s],’’ express consignment operators, freight forwarders, and any entity involved in sale or importation.
It also expands a recurring statutory reference to ‘‘packaging’’ to explicitly include packing materials and shipping containers. Practically, this gives rights holders access to metadata and transactional traces that previously lived in marketplace or logistics systems rather than in import declarations alone.Third, the bill widens the universe of potential recipients.
Beyond named parties in current law, CBP may now release information to ‘‘any other party with an interest in the merchandise’’ if the Commissioner considers it appropriate. That is a delegation of discretion to CBP leadership to recognize additional stakeholders — law firms, platform compliance teams, third‑party investigators, or foreign rights holders — as authorized recipients.Taken together, these amendments change the shape of border IP enforcement by making more granular commercial and logistic data available while imposing a somewhat more formalized threshold for disclosure.
The practical effects will turn on how CBP defines ‘‘reasonable suspicion,’’ how it implements safeguards for nonpublic information, and how it exercises the new authority to designate additional interested parties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends section 628A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1628a) — not a new standalone statute, but a targeted revision to existing CBP information‑sharing authority.
It replaces the statutory phrasing ‘‘suspects’’ with ‘‘has a reasonable suspicion,’’ shifting the legal standard CBP must satisfy before sharing information.
CBP may disclose nonpublic information that was generated by online marketplaces, similar market platforms, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, or any entity involved in sale or importation, and that was provided to or obtained by CBP.
The text inserts ‘‘packing materials, shipping containers’’ wherever the statute previously referenced ‘‘its packaging,’’ broadening the categories of physical‑supply‑chain data in scope.
Subsection (b) adds a catch‑all permitting disclosure to ‘‘any other party with an interest in the merchandise, as determined appropriate by the Commissioner,’’ creating explicit delegation of recipient‑selection authority to CBP leadership.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Raises the disclosure threshold and expands covered data sources
This part substitutes ‘‘has a reasonable suspicion’’ for ‘‘suspects,’’ which is more than a word swap: it embeds an objective legal standard that can be tested and documented. It also augments the list of data CBP may disclose to include information ‘‘generated by an online marketplace or other similar market platform, an express consignment operator, a freight forwarder, or any other entity’’ involved in sale or importation, and makes ‘‘packing materials, shipping containers’’ explicit alongside packaging. Practically, CBP will be able to share marketplace listings, seller account identifiers, shipping‑label metadata, airwaybill traces, and container identifiers — data types not always present in entry paperwork. That will require CBP to adjust intake, retention, and redaction practices for nonpublic commercial datasets.
Clarifies the source‑to‑CBP chain for disclosable information
The added language conditions disclosure on the information having been ‘‘provided to, shared with, or obtained by’’ CBP, which recognizes multiple paths by which CBP may receive third‑party data. The statutory phrasing signals Congress intends CBP to use data it already holds from platforms or carriers, rather than creating a freestanding authority to compel new data collection. However, the plain text does not describe process rules — e.g., how CBP requests or accepts such data, timing, or format — meaning administrative guidance or internal procedures will determine operational mechanics.
Broadens recipients via Commissioner discretion
Subsection (b) expands the list of permissible recipients by adding a residual clause: CBP may provide information to ‘‘any other party with an interest in the merchandise, as determined appropriate by the Commissioner.’’ That grants the Commissioner latitude to recognize recipients beyond the statute’s enumerated categories. From a compliance perspective, this creates a case‑by‑case determination model rather than a fixed recipient list, which could speed access for some requestors but also lead to inconsistent decisions absent published criteria or appeal pathways.
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
- Intellectual‑property owners and enforcement counsel — they gain access to marketplace listings, seller identifiers, shipping metadata, and logistics records that strengthen investigations and civil or administrative cases against infringers.
- CBP enforcement units — access to richer, platform‑level and logistics data makes it easier for officers to trace transshipment and concealment strategies, improving targeting and interdiction of counterfeit imports.
- Foreign and U.S. brand protection teams and private investigators — the statutory clarity on allowable sources reduces legal friction when platforms or carriers provide data to CBP or to requestors designated by the Commissioner.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, and logistics providers — they may face more frequent demands for nonpublic data, operational burdens to preserve and transmit records, and increased legal exposure if their systems reveal potential infringement paths.
- Importers and customs brokers — expanded data sharing raises the probability of additional inquiries, holds, or seizures; they will need to provide more supply‑chain transparency and potentially bear delay costs.
- CBP and Treasury components — they must implement new intake, legal review, and redaction procedures, and manage disclosure determinations under the ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’ standard without additional statutory direction, creating administrative workload and potential litigation risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enabling targeted, intelligence‑driven IP enforcement by opening up marketplace and logistics data, and protecting commercial confidentiality and personal privacy from overbroad disclosure: the bill tightens the legal trigger but hands CBP wide discretion over what data to share and who may receive it, forcing a trade‑off between enforcement effectiveness and safeguards for data subjects and commercial actors.
The bill juxtaposes two contrasting moves: it tightens the disclosure trigger by requiring ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’ while simultaneously widening the kinds of data CBP can disclose and the number of potential recipients. That combination raises practical and legal questions about how CBP will document and justify disclosures, how it will protect trade secrets and personal data embedded in marketplace and logistics records, and how it will avoid inconsistent recipient determinations when the Commissioner’s discretion is broad but uncodified.
Implementation will likely require CBP to issue internal guidance or regulations setting standards for evidence, redaction, retention, and recipient vetting.
The text leaves several operational matters unresolved. It does not set timelines for CBP responses to requests, nor does it require notice to data subjects or impose data‑minimization or encryption requirements for transfers.
The catch‑all for ‘‘any other party with an interest’’ provides flexibility but also invites appeals and transparency challenges unless CBP publishes criteria or establishes an appeal mechanism. Cross‑border privacy laws and platform contractual terms could complicate transfers of marketplace or logistics data to CBP or to third parties located outside their original jurisdiction, potentially limiting the statute’s practical reach without parallel agreements or MOUs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.