Marketplaces are tightening product listing verification: will there be less counterfeit?

Why marketplaces have to strengthen control

The scale of e-commerce has made manual verification of every product listing practically impossible. Thousands of offers in a single category can be listed on one platform simultaneously, and the number of sellers is constantly growing. At the same time, not all violations are obvious: counterfeit goods may use original photos, similar descriptions, and markings, creating the impression of official products.

Categories with high brand recognition are particularly vulnerable:

1. cosmetics; 2. clothing and footwear; 3. electronics; 4. children's goods; 5. auto parts; 6. health products.

For the buyer, the difference between an original product and a counterfeit often becomes noticeable only after the purchase. Because of this, a brand may receive negative reviews, a lower rating, and a loss of customer trust.

What control tools do marketplaces use

Today, platforms are developing several verification areas at once.

• Seller verification

Marketplaces are strengthening control over the registration of new participants, requiring more information about the company and the origin of goods. This allows for a reduction in the number of accidental or unscrupulous sellers, but it is impossible to completely eliminate violations. Counterfeit sellers may use shell accounts or quickly create new stores after being blocked.

• Product card analysis

Modern systems can analyze photos, descriptions, product names, and other parameters. For example, algorithms are capable of identifying cards that resemble official brand offers or finding signs of content copying. However, automatic verification is not always able to determine whether a product is original. Externally identical packaging can be used for both legal products and counterfeits.

• Working with state systems

Integration with state registries and labeling systems is becoming an additional tool. For example, for certain categories of goods, checking labeling codes allows for the identification of products that have not been legally put into circulation.

But even such mechanisms do not solve all problems, as counterfeiters quickly adapt to modern realities: they use forged documents, copy labeling, or move sales to other platforms.

Is it possible to protect a brand using only the marketplace's resources?

Increased control by marketplaces is an important step, but it does not replace a comprehensive brand protection system, as the platform only sees part of the information.

For instance, a marketplace can check a product listing, seller documents, or specific signs of infringement. However, the right holder possesses more extensive expertise:

• they know the specifics of their products; • they can distinguish original packaging from a counterfeit; • they understand which sellers are authorized to sell the product; • they can assess the impact of the infringement on the brand.

Furthermore, even after a listing is removed, the problem may recur. An unscrupulous seller can change the product name, create a new account, or post a similar offer through a different platform.

Practical steps for brand owners

New control mechanisms do not mean that businesses can fully delegate brand protection to marketplaces. An effective strategy includes several elements:

1. Regular monitoring. It is important not to wait for customer complaints but to proactively identify suspicious listings.

2. Documenting violations. For successful protection, it is necessary to save information about the seller and the product (price, images, etc.), as well as record other circumstances of the violation.

3. Rapid response. The sooner an illegal listing is removed, the lower the risk of lost sales and reputational damage.

4. Monitoring repeat violations. After removal, it is important to track whether the same product reappears under a different name or from another seller.

How automation helps brands

With a small number of products, manual verification can still be effective. However, for companies with a wide range of products and a presence on multiple marketplaces, this approach quickly becomes unfeasible. Automated monitoring systems allow for regular tracking of digital platforms, identifying potential violations, and reducing response times.

ZIPDetect helps rights holders not only identify suspicious product listings but also structure further work on violations: preparing complaints, monitoring their review, and obtaining analytics on the brand's status.

Automated protection results: what happens after filing a complaint

ZIPDetect’s experience shows that automated monitoring not only enables potential infringements to be identified more quickly, but also allows them to be addressed systematically once confirmed.

For example, when protecting the Darwin brand on Wildberries, 2,587 product listings were subject to complaints. Of these, 1,418 listings (54.8%) were removed from the platform. In another 1,034 listings, sellers removed the brand: 1,002 listings were renamed under a different brand, while 29 were removed from search results. As a result, the infringement was remedied for 2,452 out of 2,587 listings — 94.8%. Only 135 listings (5.2%) continued to use the brand.

Notably, in most cases, sellers responded to the complaint received: 1,081 out of 1,169 listings that were subsequently modified were edited after the complaint was submitted — 92%.

A similar result was observed when protecting the Dreame brand. A total of 2,371 listings on Ozon, Wildberries, and Yandex Market were subject to complaints. On individual platforms, the share of resolved infringements reached 95.5%. For example, on Ozon (Jingxiang), 404 out of 423 listings were removed. In Ozon’s main search results, 684 out of 1,070 listings were removed (64%); on Wildberries, 242 out of 278 listings were either removed or taken out of search results (87%); and on Yandex Market, 506 out of 600 listings were removed (84%). Overall, the infringement was remedied for approximately 78–80% of the brand’s listings.

At the same time, the platform’s response time can vary significantly. For Dreame on Ozon (Jingxiang), the median time from detecting an infringement to blocking the listing was 3.9 days, while the average was 4.5 days. For Darwin on Wildberries, the median response time was 10.2 days, with an average of 10.6 days. For Dreame on Ozon’s main search results, the median was 16 days, while the average was 35 days.

Importantly, these figures do not represent ZIPDetect’s processing time. Infringement detection is fully automated: marketplace monitoring is conducted weekly, and once an infringement is confirmed, a complaint is prepared and submitted on the same day. The timeframes above reflect the actual response time of the marketplace itself.

Thus, automation makes it possible to establish a continuous protection cycle: infringement detection → confirmation → complaint preparation and submission → monitoring changes to the listing → re-check.

This is particularly important when dealing with thousands of listings, where manually monitoring infringements and subsequently tracking each complaint can become excessively time-consuming for a rights holder’s team.

Will there be less counterfeit?

Increased oversight by marketplaces can indeed reduce the number of obvious violations and complicate the operations of unscrupulous sellers.

However, it is impossible to completely solve the problem through the efforts of the platforms alone. Counterfeiting evolves alongside digital commerce: violators use new schemes, change their promotion methods, and adapt to rule changes.

Therefore, the key task for rights holders remains building their own brand protection system. Marketplaces are becoming an important partner in this work, but the responsibility for preserving brand value and customer trust still lies with the business itself.