Two weeks remain for anyone who wants a marketplace named on Europe’s next counterfeit watch list. The Commission’s consultation closes at 23:59 CEST on 11 September, and the evidence submitted will decide which foreign platforms and physical markets appear in the next edition.
The exercise is unusual in EU trade policy because it names commercial actors rather than countries. The watch list identifies online service providers and physical marketplaces outside the Union that are reported to engage in, facilitate or benefit from substantial infringement of intellectual property rights. A parallel targeted consultation on the state of intellectual property in third countries runs on the same clock.
Both opened on 11 June. Rights holders, trade associations, online platforms, public authorities and individual businesses can file. The Commission is asking for specifics rather than complaints, which is where most submissions fall short.
Naming has no legal effect. A listed marketplace faces no tariff, no fine and no obligation to change anything. What it faces is reputational pressure and, more practically, the attention of payment processors, advertisers and logistics providers who prefer not to appear alongside a Commission finding. That indirect mechanism has produced results in some cases and none in others.
The pattern from previous editions is instructive. Large platforms with genuine commercial exposure in Europe tend to respond by tightening seller verification and takedown processes, sometimes negotiating directly with Commission services before publication. Operators with no European revenue simply ignore the listing, and the instrument has no answer to that.
Enforcement reality has also shifted since the last report. Counterfeit trade increasingly moves through small parcels rather than containers, and the volume defeats physical inspection. The customs reform agreed in March pushes responsibility toward platforms and introduces a handling fee on low-value imports, but the operational parts of that system arrive in 2028 at the earliest. Until then, the watch list and the enforcement toolkit around it carry more weight than their legal status suggests.
Critics of the approach make a fair point about evidence. Submissions come overwhelmingly from rights holders with an interest in a broad listing, and the Commission has limited capacity to test claims independently. A marketplace can dispute its inclusion, but the burden sits awkwardly. The counterargument is that the alternative is no visibility at all, and that the list has surfaced problems national authorities missed.
Small European exporters have a narrower stake and often skip the process. Design-led manufacturers who lose sales to copies rarely have the legal budget to compile the documentation a submission needs. That gap tilts the resulting picture toward the concerns of large brand owners, which is not the same thing as the concerns of the European economy.
The report itself will land in 2027 and feed into trade dialogues and market access work. Anyone with something concrete to say has until 11 September to say it, and after that the picture is set for another two years.
