A substantive refinement of information sharing provisions. v2 clarifies the standard for suspicion, expands the types of physical evidence that can be shared, and adds a new requirement for notification when nonpublic information is transmitted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
A bill to expand the sharing of information with respect to suspected violations of intellectual property rights in trade.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 10, 2026
Bottom line
This bill enhances CBP's ability to combat intellectual property rights infringement by facilitating greater information sharing with rights holders and other interested parties, including nonpublic data from online trade platforms.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to broaden the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to share information with intellectual property rights holders regarding suspected violations. It lowers the threshold for sharing from 'suspects' to 'has a reasonable suspicion' and expands the types of physical evidence and nonpublic information that can be shared, including data from online marketplaces and other entities involved in importation. It also broadens the definition of 'interested parties' who can receive such information.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill strengthens intellectual property enforcement, making it harder for counterfeit and pirated goods to enter the U.S. market. By allowing CBP to share more comprehensive information, including data from online platforms, it empowers rights holders to take more effective action against infringers, protecting American businesses and consumers from illicit trade and fostering innovation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about privacy implications of sharing nonpublic information, potential for misuse of data by rights holders, or the possibility of overreach by CBP. They could argue that expanding information sharing without sufficient safeguards could lead to harassment of legitimate businesses or individuals, or that it shifts too much enforcement burden onto private entities without adequate oversight.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, making it accessible for immediate evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 1(1)(A), amending 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)
Adjusting Suspicion Standard for Information Sharing
This provision changes the standard for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to share information with intellectual property rights holders. Previously, CBP had to 'suspect' a violation; now, they only need to have a 'reasonable suspicion.' This lowers the evidentiary threshold, making it easier for CBP to initiate information sharing with rights holders regarding potential infringements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change streamlines the process for CBP to assist rights holders, enabling quicker responses to potential infringements and enhancing overall enforcement efficiency against illicit trade.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that lowering the threshold could lead to an increase in information sharing based on less robust evidence, potentially impacting legitimate trade or privacy without sufficient justification.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for more efficient intellectual property enforcement against concerns about potential overreach or impact on legitimate trade due to a less stringent evidentiary standard.
Section 1(1)(B), amending 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)(1)
Broader Physical Evidence Sharing
This provision expands the types of physical evidence that CBP can share with intellectual property rights holders. It adds 'packing materials, containers' to the existing categories of merchandise, its packaging, and labels. This allows rights holders to receive a more complete picture of suspected counterfeit goods, aiding in identification and investigation.
Section 1(1)(D), adding new paragraph (3) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)
Sharing Nonpublic Information from Online Marketplaces and Other Entities
This is a significant new authority for CBP. It allows CBP to provide intellectual property rights holders with nonpublic information about merchandise that originated from online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, or any other entity involved in the sale or importation of goods. This information must have been provided to, shared with, or obtained by CBP, offering unprecedented access to digital trade data.
Section 1(1)(D), adding new paragraph (4) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)
Notification Requirement for Nonpublic Data Transmission
This provision requires CBP to notify the intellectual property rights holder when nonpublic information, as described in the new paragraph (3), is transmitted to them. The notification must be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. This ensures transparency in the new data sharing process.
Section 1(2)(C), adding new paragraph (5) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(b)
Broader Definition of Interested Parties for Information Sharing
This provision expands the list of entities to whom CBP may provide information about suspected intellectual property rights violations. It adds 'any other party with an interest in the merchandise, as determined appropriate by the Commissioner.' This grants the Commissioner of CBP broad discretion to share information with additional stakeholders beyond previously specified entities.
This provision allows the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to share information regarding suspected intellectual property rights violations with 'any other party with an interest in the merchandise,' beyond the previously specified entities like rights holders, licensees, and government agencies.
Section 1(2)(C), adding new paragraph (5) to 19 U.S.C. 1628a(b)
Why it matters:While explicitly stated, the broadness of 'any other party' could be seen as intentionally flexible to allow maximum discretion without explicit legislative debate on specific new categories of recipients, potentially obscuring its full implications.
Case for: Supporters argue this flexibility is essential for CBP to adapt to new forms of IP infringement and collaborate with a wider range of stakeholders, including emerging industry groups or international partners, to effectively combat illicit trade.
Case against: Critics might contend that this broad discretion lacks clear boundaries, potentially leading to information sharing with entities whose 'interest' is not clearly defined or whose data handling practices are not adequately scrutinized, raising privacy and commercial confidentiality concerns.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could dramatically expand the pool of entities receiving sensitive trade data, depending on how the Commissioner interprets and exercises this new authority.