119-HR-4930 Corporate Impact Analysis

Summary

The bill tightens and broadens CBP’s information‑sharing authority under Section 628A by (a) raising the trigger from “suspects” to “has a reasonable suspicion,” (b) allowing sharing of nonpublic data generated by online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, etc., and (c) widening eligible recipients to include “any other party with an interest,” as the Commissioner deems appropriate. Committee consideration occurred on December 10, 2025, with a bipartisan 40–0 vote to report. [1]Congress.gov — Text — H.R.4930 (119th): To expand the sharing of information ..…[3]House Committee on Ways and Means — Ways & Means Committee — Markups (Dec. 10,…[4]House.gov — Rep. Blake Moore press release: Legislation to Halt Counterfeit Imp…

Economic Effects

Net effect likely positive for brand owners and compliant retailers via faster interdictions; compliance and legal‑risk costs rise for marketplaces, carriers, and importers operating at scale in small‑parcel channels. Evidence points to material counterfeit volumes and enforcement strain in de minimis trade. [5]OECD — Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025[6]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP — Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) p…[7]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO-20-692: CBP Has Taken Steps to Comb…

• Reduced counterfeit competition for legitimate firms as data flows enable faster authentication and interdiction; DHS and USTR have urged stronger public‑private data sharing to combat online counterfeits. [8]U.S. Department of Homeland Security — DHS releases report on combatting traffi…[9]Office of the U.S. Trade Representative — USTR 2020 Review of Notorious Markets…
• Compliance burdens for platforms/logistics: expanded secure‑handling of nonpublic shipment and seller data, potential need for new contractual terms, audit logs, and personnel training to manage CBP requests and downstream dissemination to rights holders. While the bill itself is not a tax/fee measure, operational costs are likely to rise. [1]Congress.gov — Text — H.R.4930 (119th): To expand the sharing of information ..…
• Interaction with small‑parcel commerce: CBP reported over 1.3 billion de minimis shipments in FY2024, illustrating scale; GAO has flagged process strain and urged streamlined approaches for small packages. [6]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP — Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) p…[7]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO-20-692: CBP Has Taken Steps to Comb…
• Policy backdrop shifts market incentives: the 2025 rollback of the de minimis exemption (preceded by China/Hong Kong–specific limits in May 2025) changes landed costs and volumes, but counterfeit interdiction still depends on data granularity at the parcel level that this bill facilitates. [10]Reuters — CBP has processed nearly 24 mln parcels that would have been duty-fre…[11]AP News — Cheap parcels from China will no longer be duty‑free — what it means
• Macroevidence: counterfeit trade was about USD 467 billion (≈2.3% of global imports) in 2021; enforcement that targets small shipments is increasingly necessary as most seizures involve very small consignments. [5]OECD — Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025
• Potential secondary benefits for firms offering compliance tech, authentication, and data‑integration services as CBP expands information requests and sharing workflows with private actors. [8]U.S. Department of Homeland Security — DHS releases report on combatting traffi…

Social Effects

Expected consumer‑safety gains from fewer dangerous counterfeits; privacy and due‑process considerations for individuals and small businesses whose data or shipments are implicated. [14]U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Counterfeit Goods: A Danger to Publi…[12]U.S. Department of Justice — Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media — D…

• Consumer protection: counterfeit goods (e.g., pharmaceuticals, auto parts, batteries, cosmetics) pose health/safety risks; improved data sharing can help CBP/HSI disrupt these flows. [14]U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Counterfeit Goods: A Danger to Publi…
• Global public‑health context underscores risk magnitude (e.g., WHO on substandard/falsified medicines), reinforcing benefits of stronger border screening. [15]Web search · turn 7 #2
• Privacy/civil‑liberties: routing nonpublic marketplace and carrier data to rights holders or other “interested parties” raises privacy expectations and potential chilling effects unless safeguarded by confidentiality commitments; Supreme Court precedent broadened Exemption 4 protection for confidential commercial info provided under assurances of privacy. [12]U.S. Department of Justice — Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media — D…
• Procedural fairness: recent trade‑enforcement cases prompted CBP to adopt Administrative Protective Orders (APOs) to balance transparency and confidentiality in EAPA matters; analogous guardrails may be needed when CBP shares third‑party data under Section 628A. [16]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP Increases Transparency in Proprietary…
• Communities reliant on micro‑imports via marketplaces may face higher seizure rates and administrative burdens; GAO has documented resource intensity and process complexity around small‑package IPR enforcement. [7]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO-20-692: CBP Has Taken Steps to Comb…

Environmental Effects

Environmental outcomes are secondary but nontrivial: seized goods are often destroyed; sustainable disposal or recycling programs can mitigate waste. [17]WIPO Magazine — Making disposal of counterfeits sustainable: the REACT way

• Destruction impacts: increased seizures can raise waste volumes; brand and customs initiatives encourage reclamation/recycling over incineration to reduce environmental footprint. [17]WIPO Magazine — Making disposal of counterfeits sustainable: the REACT way
• Stakeholder awareness is rising on sustainable destruction practices, though cost allocation remains debated across importers, infringers, brands, and authorities. [18]International Trademark Association — INTA Working Group Conducts Survey on Sus…
• Some counterfeit categories also create environmental and health externalities (e.g., fake chemicals/pesticides), so upstream deterrence via data sharing can have net environmental benefits. [19]Web search · turn 11 #5

Temporal Analysis

1. 0–12 months after enactment: compliance ramp by marketplaces/carriers (data governance, secure interfaces), more rapid brand consultations, and targeted seizures; benefits most visible in categories with robust recordations and clear authenticity indicators. [6]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP — Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) p…[8]U.S. Department of Homeland Security — DHS releases report on combatting traffi…
2. 1–3 years: integration of richer third‑party data could shorten cycle times from detention to determination; due‑process/privacy frameworks (e.g., APO‑style tools) will shape dispute rates and litigation risk. [16]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP Increases Transparency in Proprietary…
3. 3+ years: if stable, the framework supports durable brand investment and consumer trust; if confidentiality or over‑seizure controversies rise, Congress/CBP may revisit limits, affecting regulatory predictability. [12]U.S. Department of Justice — Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media — D…

Unintended Consequences

Risks and trade‑offs documented in credible sources and recent enforcement practice.

• Over‑breadth of “interested party” may enable wider dissemination than necessary, elevating leakage risks of proprietary shipment/seller data; mitigation relies on CBP privacy policy, FOIA Exemption 4 interpretations, and enforceable NDAs/terms. [1]Congress.gov — Text — H.R.4930 (119th): To expand the sharing of information ..…[13]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP Directive 2120‑010A — Privacy Policy,…[12]U.S. Department of Justice — Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media — D…
• False positives and procedural friction: small businesses may bear detention costs/delays; GAO highlights time‑ and resource‑intensive seizure/forfeiture steps for small packages. [7]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO-20-692: CBP Has Taken Steps to Comb…
• Policy whiplash: parallel changes to de minimis rules alter volumes/costs; if parcel flows reconfigure quickly, operational strains could produce inconsistent enforcement outcomes irrespective of better data access. [10]Reuters — CBP has processed nearly 24 mln parcels that would have been duty-fre…

Assessment

Overall stance: neutral. On balance, the bill likely improves IPR enforcement efficacy and consumer safety while imposing incremental compliance and confidentiality‑management costs on intermediaries; ultimate impact depends on CBP’s implementation of privacy/APA‑consistent guardrails and the stability of the broader small‑parcel policy environment. [8]U.S. Department of Homeland Security — DHS releases report on combatting traffi…[12]U.S. Department of Justice — Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media — D…[16]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP Increases Transparency in Proprietary…[10]Reuters — CBP has processed nearly 24 mln parcels that would have been duty-fre…

Key Metrics

Context for metrics derived from OECD and CBP sources; see Sourcing for citations. [5]OECD — Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025[6]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP — Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) p…

Sourcing

Selected authoritative sources underpinning this analysis, mapped to key claims.

• Bill text and scope changes to 19 U.S.C. 1628a; committee markup context. [1]Congress.gov — Text — H.R.4930 (119th): To expand the sharing of information ..…[3]House Committee on Ways and Means — Ways & Means Committee — Markups (Dec. 10,…[4]House.gov — Rep. Blake Moore press release: Legislation to Halt Counterfeit Imp…
• Existing Section 628A baseline. [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 19 U.S.C. §1628a — Exchange of information related t…
• Counterfeit trade scale and small‑parcel dynamics. [5]OECD — Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025
• CBP IPR enforcement and e‑commerce/de minimis volumes. [6]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP — Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) p…
• Small‑package enforcement challenges; process intensity. [7]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO-20-692: CBP Has Taken Steps to Comb…
• De minimis policy changes in 2025 shaping volumes/costs. [10]Reuters — CBP has processed nearly 24 mln parcels that would have been duty-fre…[11]AP News — Cheap parcels from China will no longer be duty‑free — what it means
• Confidential‑information protections (FOIA Exemption 4). [12]U.S. Department of Justice — Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media — D…
• CBP privacy governance and APO practice for confidential records. [13]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP Directive 2120‑010A — Privacy Policy,…[16]U.S. Customs and Border Protection — CBP Increases Transparency in Proprietary…
• Consumer‑safety risks from counterfeits. [14]U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Counterfeit Goods: A Danger to Publi…
• Sustainable handling of seized counterfeits. [17]WIPO Magazine — Making disposal of counterfeits sustainable: the REACT way[18]International Trademark Association — INTA Working Group Conducts Survey on Sus…
• Policy direction to enhance public‑private enforcement collaboration. [8]U.S. Department of Homeland Security — DHS releases report on combatting traffi…[9]Office of the U.S. Trade Representative — USTR 2020 Review of Notorious Markets…