Technical corrections only. The changes between v3 and v4 reflect the bill's progression from being engrossed in the House to being referred to the Senate, including a clerical update to the Clerk's name. No substantive policy changes were made.
To expand the sharing of information with respect to suspected violations of intellectual property rights in trade.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill enhances CBP's ability to combat intellectual property rights infringement by facilitating broader information sharing with rights holders and other interested parties, including nonpublic data from e-commerce and logistics platforms.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 628A of the Tariff Act of 1930 to broaden the scope of information U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can share with intellectual property (IP) rights holders regarding suspected violations. It expands the types of physical evidence (packing materials, containers) that can be shared and authorizes CBP to provide nonpublic information obtained from online marketplaces, freight forwarders, or other trade entities, with a notification requirement. Additionally, it expands the range of parties who can receive this information to include any other party with an interest, as determined by the Commissioner.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that expanding information sharing is crucial for effective intellectual property enforcement in an era of complex global supply chains and e-commerce. They contend that providing rights holders with more comprehensive data, including nonpublic information from online platforms and logistics providers, empowers them to identify and pursue counterfeiters more efficiently, thereby protecting American businesses and consumers from illicit goods and ensuring fair competition.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about privacy and data security, arguing that sharing nonpublic information from online marketplaces or freight forwarders could expose sensitive commercial data or personal information without adequate safeguards. They may also worry about potential misuse of this expanded information by rights holders or the administrative burden it places on third-party entities to collect and share such data with CBP, potentially leading to overreach or competitive disadvantages.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, making it easy for any informed reader to understand its direct legislative changes quickly.
Section 1(1)(B) of the bill, amending 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)(1)
Broadening Physical Evidence for IP Violation Suspicions
This provision amends existing law to allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to share images not only of suspected infringing merchandise, its packaging, and labels, but also of its 'packing materials' and 'containers.' This expands the visual evidence that can be provided to intellectual property rights holders when CBP suspects a violation, offering a more complete picture of the suspected illicit goods.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that counterfeiters often use sophisticated methods to disguise illicit goods, and expanding the scope of shareable physical evidence to include packing materials and containers provides a more complete picture, aiding rights holders in confirming infringement and taking effective action against illicit trade.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is seen as a logical extension of existing information sharing practices to improve enforcement effectiveness without introducing new types of data that raise privacy concerns.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for comprehensive evidence in IP enforcement against the administrative burden on CBP to capture and share additional types of images, which is generally considered a reasonable trade-off for improved enforcement.
Section 1(1)(D) of the bill, adding new paragraphs (3) and (4) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)
Authorizing Sharing of Nonpublic E-commerce and Logistics Data
This provision authorizes CBP to share 'nonpublic information' about suspected infringing merchandise with intellectual property rights holders. This information can be generated by online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, or any other entity involved in the sale or importation of merchandise, provided CBP has obtained it. The bill also mandates that CBP notify the rights holder when such nonpublic information is transmitted, ensuring transparency in the sharing process.
Section 1(2)(C) of the bill, adding new paragraph (5) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(b)
Broadening Recipients of IP Violation Information
This provision expands the list of entities that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can share information with regarding suspected intellectual property rights violations. It adds 'any other party with an interest in the merchandise, as determined appropriate by the Commissioner' to the existing list of rights holders, their agents, and licensees, allowing for greater flexibility in enforcement collaboration.
Authorizes CBP to share 'nonpublic information' generated by online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, or other entities involved in trade, with intellectual property rights holders.
Section 1(1)(D), adding new paragraph (3) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)
Why it matters:This could be standard legislative practice to allow for regulatory flexibility in adapting to evolving data types and enforcement needs. However, it could also be seen as intentionally broad to avoid specific limitations on data types that might be politically contentious or to grant maximum discretion to enforcement agencies.
Case for: Proponents argue that a broad definition is necessary to allow CBP and rights holders to adapt to evolving methods of IP infringement, which often leverage new data streams. Specific definitions could become quickly outdated or inadvertently exclude crucial information needed for effective enforcement.
Case against: Critics argue that the lack of a precise definition creates ambiguity and potential for overreach, allowing for the sharing of data that was not explicitly intended by Congress. This could potentially impact privacy rights, proprietary business information, or lead to inconsistent application across different cases or platforms.
Estimated impact: The impact is potentially significant, as the scope of data shared will directly influence the effectiveness of IP enforcement, the privacy implications for individuals and businesses, and the compliance burden on third-party platforms.