Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 149
Research Article / Научная статья
УДК 347.77
DOI: 10.14258/SSI(2025)3–08
E-Commerce and Counterfeit Circulation: Risks to Public Safety
and Ways of Legal Protection
AnnaV. Pokrovskaya
RUDN University, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract. In the context of the rapid growth of e-commerce, the circulation of counterfeit prod-
ucts on digital trading platforms is becoming one of the most acute threats to public safety and the
stability of the legal market. e relevance of this study is due to new challenges arising at the inter-
section of innovative trading technologies and illegal practices of distributing goods in violation of
intellectual property rights. e problem is aggravated by the high level of anonymity and mobility
of sellers, diculties in identifying participants and the peculiarities of cross- border transactions,
which threatens the economic interests of the state, legal businesses and consumer safety. e pur-
pose of the work is acomprehensive analysis of the factors contributing to the spread of counterfeit
goods in e-commerce, identifying the main risks for various interest groups and determining eec-
tive mechanisms of legal protection. e study is based on an interdisciplinary approach, including
an analysis of current legislation, judicial and administrative practice, as well as modern digital and
organizational countermeasures. e methods of comparative legal analysis, case studies, and el-
ements of an expert survey were used to assess the scale and specics of the problem. e main
results are related to identifying the key reasons for the ineciency of existing legal and technical
mechanisms for monitoring the circulation of counterfeit products on marketplaces. e most eec-
tive measures proposed include modernizing seller identication procedures, increasing platform
liability, introducing Trace & Track technologies and mandatory digital labeling of goods, as well as
developing self-regulation systems and information exchange between the state, business, and copy-
right holders. e scientic novelty of the work lies in the comprehensive characteristics of the digi-
tal environment as aspecial object of legal regulation, in integrating foreign and Russian experience,
and in proposing systemic measures to balance the interests of market participants without excessive
government intervention. e practical signicance is manifested in the possibility of applying the
ndings and recommendations in the development of regulations, improving the corporate policies
of Internet platforms, and forming educational programs for consumers.
Keywords: e-commerce, counterfeit goods, public safety, legal protection, marketplaces,
intellectual property, seller identication
Financial Support: e research was supported by Russian Science Foundation grant
No. 24–28–00567.
For citation: Pokrovskaya, A. V. (2025). E-Commerce and Counterfeit Circulation: Risks to Public
Safety and Ways of Legal Protection. Society and Security Insights, 8(3), 149–161. (In Russ.). doi:
10.14258/ssi(2025)3–08.
Society andSecurity Insights № 2 2025 150
Электронная коммерция иобращение контрафактной
продукции: риски для общественной безопасности испособы
правовой защиты
Покровская Анна Владимировна
Российский университет дружбы народов, Москва, Россия, pokrovskaya-anvl@rudn.ru, https://
orcid.org/0009–0002–6473–2027
Аннотация. Вусловиях стремительного роста электронной коммерции распространение
контрафактной продукции нацифровых торговых площадках становится одной изнаиболее
острых угроз общественной безопасности истабильности легального рынка. Актуальность
данного исследования обусловлена новыми вызовами, возникающими настыке инноваци-
онных торговых технологий инезаконных практик распространения товаров снарушением
прав интеллектуальной собственности. Проблема усугубляется высокой степенью аноним-
ности имобильности продавцов, сложностью идентификации участников иособенностями
трансграничных сделок, что угрожает экономическим интересам государства, легального
бизнеса ибезопасности потребителей. Целью работы является комплексный анализ факто-
ров, способствующих распространению контрафактной продукции вэлектронной коммер-
ции, выявление основных рисков для различных групп интересов иопределение эффектив-
ных механизмов правовой защиты. Исследование основано намеждисциплинарном подходе,
включающем анализ действующего законодательства, судебной иадминистративной прак-
тики, атакже современных цифровых иорганизационных мер противодействия. Для оцен-
ки масштаба испецифики проблемы использованы методы сравнительно- правового анали-
за, кейс-стади иэлементы экспертного опроса. Основные результаты связаны свыявлением
ключевых причин неэффективности существующих правовых итехнических механизмов
контроля заоборотом контрафактной продукции наторговых площадках. Вкачестве наибо-
лее эффективных предлагаемых мер рассматриваются модернизация процедур идентифика-
ции продавцов, повышение ответственности площадок, внедрение технологий Trace&Track
иобязательной цифровой маркировки товаров, атакже развитие систем саморегулирования
иинформационного обмена между государством, бизнесом иправообладателями. Научная
новизна работы заключается вкомплексной характеристике цифровой среды как особого
объекта правового регулирования, интеграции зарубежного ироссийского опыта ипред-
ложении системных мер пообеспечению баланса интересов участников рынка без чрезмер-
ного вмешательства государства. Практическая значимость проявляется в возможности
применения полученных результатов ирекомендаций при разработке нормативных актов,
совершенствовании корпоративной политики интернет- платформ иформировании обра-
зовательных программ для потребителей.
Ключевые слова: электронная коммерция, контрафактные товары, общественная без-
опасность, правовая защита, торговые площадки, интеллектуальная собственность, иден-
тификация продавца
Финансирование: исследование выполнено засчет гранта Российского научного фон-
да №24–28–00567.
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 151
Для цитирования: Покровская А. В. Электронная коммерция иобращение контрафактной
продукции: риски для общественной безопасности испособы правовой защиты. Society and
Security Insights. 2025. Т.8, №3. С.149–161. doi: 10.14258/ssi(2025)3–08.
1. Introduction
In recent years, e-commerce has demonstrated rapid growth, becoming an integral
part of the global and national economy (Purohit & Purohit, 2005). Online stores and
marketplaces provide consumers with wide access to a variety of goods, which simplies
the purchasing process and promotes the development of entrepreneurship. According to
analytical agencies, the volume of e-commerce in Russia is increasing by tens of percent
annually, and its share in retail trade continues to grow (Karlovskaya & Chelombitko,
2024).
However, along with positive trends, the development of e-commerce is accompanied
by new challenges, the most serious of which is the increase in the distribution
of counterfeit products. e use of digital platforms makes it easier for attackers to access
a wide audience, and insucient control and anonymity of sellers contribute to the
distribution of counterfeit goods (Farrand, 2018). Counterfeiting aects all industries—
from consumer goods to medicines and spare parts, which poses a threat not only to the
economy and legal business, but also to the health and lives of citizens, and therefore
poses a real threat to public safety.
e problem of counterfeit product circulation in the electronic environment is
becoming increasingly acute in the context of the dynamic development of digital markets
and the integration of technology into all areas of trade (Mackey & Nayyar, 2017). e
spread of e-commerce, the widespread use of marketplaces, social networks and various
digital platforms have created fertile ground not only for legal business, but also for
illegal activities related to the distribution of counterfeit (fake) goods. One of the key
problems is the anonymity and high mobility of e-commerce entities (Lee & Yeon, 2021).
Internet resources allow distributors of counterfeit products to quickly create and close
trading pages, bypass blocking, change details and massively contact a wide audience
of consumers. At the same time, users are oen unable to independently distinguish
a counterfeit product from the original by photographs and descriptions (Mavlanova,
& Benbunan- Fich, 2010), and the presence of numerous intermediaries between the
seller and the buyer makes it dicult to bring to justice. Of particular importance for
the problem is the diculty of identifying copyright holders, as well as the intersection
of jurisdictions in cross- border transactions: the seller, the buyer and the market itself
may be located in dierent countries, which complicates the application of national legal
protection mechanisms (Feng & Sik, 2024). In addition, the level of digital literacy of the
population is still low, which increases the vulnerability of end buyers and stimulates
the demand for cheap, but counterfeit products. e spread of counterfeit goods in the
electronic environment causes signicant damage not only to the owners of intellectual
property rights, but also to the state, expressed in the loss of tax revenues, as well as to
society, since such goods oen do not meet quality standards and can be dangerous to
the life and health of citizens. Taken together, these circumstances indicate the need for
a comprehensive study of this problem, nding a balance between the development of
Society andSecurity Insights № 2 2025 152
e-commerce and eective legal regulation, as well as developing new mechanisms for
preventing and suppressing the circulation of counterfeit products in digital trade.
e relevance of the study is due to the urgent need to develop coordinated measures
between the state, business and society to eectively counter the threats arising at the
intersection of innovative trade technologies and criminal practices in the eld of goods
turnover
Methodology
is study is based on a comprehensive analysis of Russian and international
legislation regulating the ght against counterfeit goods in e-commerce. e work
used formal legal and comparative legal methods to identify the features and trends in
the development of relevant legal regulation. As an empirical basis, statistical data on
the dynamics of identied violations in the eld of e-commerce were analyzed, and the
opinions of specialized experts were summarized. Using individual examples, a case study
of practical situations was conducted to identify and suppress the circulation of counterfeit
goods on electronic trading platforms, which made it possible to assess the eectiveness of
existing legal mechanisms. e comprehensive use of these methods ensured the reliability
and comprehensiveness of conclusions on the issue under consideration.
2.E-commerce: current trends and development features
In recent years, e-commerce has demonstrated rapid growth, becoming one of
the key sectors of the modern economy. Globally, e-commerce has reached volumes
exceeding trillions of US dollars (according to Statista, the global e-commerce market
turnover in 2023 exceeded $ 5 trillion)
35
, and this gure is expected to continue to grow
due to the digitalization of the economy, further development of logistics services, and
the introduction of various electronic payment methods. Among the key features of the
development of e-commerce, the openness and accessibility of digital platforms stand
out (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013): almost anyone can register on a marketplace or create
their own online store, oen with a minimum set of documents or even anonymously.
e cross- border nature of e-commerce signicantly facilitates entry into foreign
markets and expands the range of goods for end consumers. is contributes to the
formation of a competitive environment, stimulates the development of courier and
postal services, as well as the transition of sellers to legal business schemes. However,
such a high degree of openness also creates certain challenges. Ease of entry into the
market and simplied identication of participants complicate control over the quality
of goods and contribute to the emergence of counterfeit or prohibited products (Staake,
et al., 2009). Cross-border transactions signicantly complicate issues of customs control
and legal protection of consumer rights, especially when purchasing goods outside their
own jurisdiction. In addition, digital platforms are faced with the need to protect users”
personal data, prevent fraud and copyright infringement (Xue, 2024). us, modern
e-commerce continues to develop at a rapid pace, actively integrating new technological
solutions and formats of interaction with customers. It provides access to the global
market and creates new opportunities for consumers and businesses, but at the same
35
Statista. “Retail e-commerce sales worldwide from 2014 to 2026 (in billion U.S. dollars) ".
2023. https://www.statista.com / statistics / 379046 / worldwide- retail-e-commerce- sales /
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 153
time requires more careful and exible regulation to ensure fair competition, the safety
of participants and the protection of their interests.
3.Counterfeit products in e-commerce
Counterfeit products are goods that illegally reproduce intellectual property
objects— trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs— and are one of the most
pressing problems of modern e-commerce (Xue, 2024). e following types of counterfeit
goods are most oen found on the Internet: clothing, footwear and accessories with
fake logos of famous brands (for example, Nike, Adidas, Louis Vuitton), electronics and
components passed o as products of Apple, Samsung and other leading manufacturers,
cosmetics and perfumes of inadequate quality that pose a threat to consumer health,
as well as pirated soware, lms and music without the appropriate license from the
copyright holder (Chen, 2014). In addition, the illegal sale of medicines and medical
equipment via the Internet poses a great danger, especially in circumvention of state and
international safety standards.
e growth of e-commerce has led to a signicant transformation in the methods of
distributing counterfeit goods. e main channels are the largest marketplaces— such as
Ozon, Wildberries, AliExpress, Avito, as well as social networks and instant messengers
(Instagram, Telegram) (Guo, et al., 2021). Sellers place ads on such platforms for the sale of
counterfeit products under the guise of the original, create fake online stores that copy the
style and even addresses of ocial websites, and actively use fake reviews and ratings to
form false trust in buyers. Increasingly, sales are organized through closed groups and chats,
where there is virtually no control from the sites. ere is also a tendency to sell counterfeit
goods in small batches, which signicantly complicates their detection and systematic
counteraction. No less common are cases of relabeling, in which a counterfeit is presented
as an original product or “gray” products imported into the country by roundabout ways
without the consent of the copyright holder
36
. e dynamic development of online trading
explains the demand for electronic platforms for violators (Chua, 2007). e anonymity
of market participants and territorial remoteness make it dicult to identify real sellers,
and the ability to quickly create new accounts or web resources allows them to return to
illegal activities soon aer blocking
37
. Massive customer trust in reputable platforms and
payment services linked to them makes it even easier for criminals to nd new victims,
reducing buyers” vigilance
38
. Trac volumes and audience breadth do not leave the
technical and administrative means of controlling the platforms with sucient resources
to constantly and eectively lter oers
39
. e situation is complicated by jurisdictional
issues: in a cross- border environment, it is extremely dicult to track the movement of
counterfeit products and apply liability measures due to the lack of uniform international
standards and loopholes in legal regulation between countries. us, e-commerce has
created a whole range of new conditions and tools that facilitate the mass distribution
36
Luxottica GroupS. p. A. v. Airport Mini Mall, LLC, 932 F. 3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2019).
37
Christian Louboutin SAS v. Amazon, C-148 / 21.
38
FTC v. PayPal, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01426 (D. D.C. 2016).
39
Delfi AS v. Estonia (European Court of Human Rights, AppNo. 64569 / 09, 16 June 2015).
Society andSecurity Insights № 2 2025 154
of counterfeit products. Overcoming this problem requires a comprehensive approach:
improving internal and international control mechanisms, developing automatic trade
monitoring systems, close interaction between online platforms and government agencies
for the protection of intellectual property, as well as large- scale work to inform and educate
consumers to distinguish original products and identify signs of counterfeiting. Only
with the joint eorts of all market participants is it possible to create a safe and civilized
e-commerce environment.
4.Risks to public safety
e spread of counterfeit products creates many serious risks to public safety,
covering both the economic sphere and public health, social stability and law and
order (Mackey & Liang, 2011). Firstly, the economic consequences are manifested in
signicant losses for copyright holders, who suer losses due to a drop in prots, loss of
reputation and a decrease in brand value. In addition, the mass presence of counterfeits
on the market leads to job losses, since legal manufacturers cannot compete with cheap
illegal goods. As a result of the spread of counterfeit products, the state also faces a
decrease in tax revenues, an increase in the costs of identifying and eliminating illegal
schemes, as well as an increase in corruption in the agencies called upon to combat this
problem (Fink et al., 2016). According to experts, in Russia alone, the shadow market
for counterfeit products causes billions of rubles in damage to the economy every year.
In turn, this contributes to the growth of the shadow economy, aggravates the level of
corruption, reduces citizens” trust in state institutions and the judiciary. e involvement
of the population in illegal product circulation oen becomes an entry point for other types
of criminal activity. e mass distribution of counterfeit goods also destroys the principles
of fair market competition, hinders the development of legal business, creates a “gray”
economic zone and signicantly complicates the ght against other illegal manifestations
in the economy (Staake et al., 2009). us, the damage from the circulation of counterfeit
products goes far beyond purely economic losses, being a serious threat to public safety, the
health of citizens and the sustainable development of the country as a whole.
5.Legal and organizational barriers to combating counterfeiting in e-commerce
Even in cases where certain verication is provided, regulatory authorities oen do
not have eective mechanisms to conrm the authenticity of the information provided.
Another serious challenge is the cross- border nature of transactions in e-commerce:
websites, platforms, and sellers themselves are most oen located outside of Russian
jurisdiction (Bieron & Ahmed, 2012). is signicantly complicates the application
of national legal norms, limits the ability to monitor and take measures to prevent
violations, and signicantly complicates the procedure for bringing perpetrators to
justice. Identication of individuals directly distributing counterfeit products via
e-commerce is also a signicant problem
40
. Violators actively use dummy accounts,
anonymous payment systems, VPN services and other tools to hide their identity,
actual location and nancial traces
41
. All this makes traditional investigation methods
40
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 576 F.Supp. 2d 463, 475 (S. D.N.Y. 2008), aff”d, 600 F. 3d 93
(2d Cir. 2010).
41
True Religion Apparel, Inc. v. Xiaokang Lee, No. CV 11–8239 PSG.
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 155
ineective, and in cases where it is possible to establish the fact of the oense, bringing the
perpetrators to justice turns out to be extremely dicult or even impossible, especially
if they constantly change their account data, contact information or operate from the
territory of other countries
42,43
. Organizational diculties are aggravated by insucient
interaction between government agencies, copyright holders and the administration
of Internet platforms. Each of these entities oen pursues its own interests and uses
dierent approaches to identifying, monitoring and blocking counterfeit products
(Spink et al., 2013). ere is no single clear algorithm for processing complaints and
responding to reports of violations. Disagreements on the issues of storage, transfer and
protection of personal data, as well as insucient technical equipment and sometimes
lack of interest of individual Internet platforms in active participation in combating
the spread of counterfeit goods further reduce the overall eectiveness of the measures
taken (Li et al., 2010). As a result, the current system requires not only the improvement
of legislation that takes into account the specics and challenges of the development
of electronic commerce, but also the introduction of a comprehensive approach to
solving the problem. It is necessary to develop mechanisms of interdepartmental and
international cooperation, use modern technologies to identify market participants,
and strengthen the institutions of collective responsibility between the state, business
and copyright holders, which will increase the eectiveness of protecting the rights of
consumers and copyright holders in the context of the digital economy.
6.Ways of legal protection and risk minimization
To eectively combat the distribution of counterfeit products on marketplaces, as
well as to minimize other violations in the eld of e-commerce, a comprehensive and
systematic approach is needed that combines the improvement of legislation, active and
consistent law enforcement practice, the introduction of modern technological solutions,
as well as close interaction with copyright holders and society (Otim & Grover, 2010).
First of all, the most important area is the improvement of legislation in the eld of
e-commerce. Modern realities require the development and implementation of prompt
and eective tools for blocking Internet resources and individual pages that distribute
counterfeit products (Li, 2013). is can be implemented both in court and out of court
(administrative) proceedings, which will allow us to respond to violations as quickly as
possible. A number of countries have already implemented mechanisms for blocking
violating sites at the request of the copyright holder
44
, and Russia is also moving in this
direction. In addition, it is important to legally establish increased, even joint, liability
of marketplaces for the circulation of counterfeit products, especially in cases where the
Internet platform does not take sucient measures to identify and prevent violations.
Such measures include the obligation to carefully identify sellers, as well as verify the
authenticity of the goods sold and documents conrming their origin
45
.
42
United States v. Ivanov, 175 F.Supp. 2d 367 (D.Conn. 2001).
43
United States v. Budovsky, No. 13-cr-368 (DLC), 2015 WL 5602853 (S. D.N.Y. 2015).
44
Cartier International AG v. British Sky BroadcastingLtd., [2016] EWCA Civ 658.
45
Louis Vuitton Malletier v eBay (TGI Paris, 30 June 2008 & CA Paris, 4 February 2010).
Society andSecurity Insights № 2 2025 156
It is also necessary to adopt special regulations that take into account the specics
of the functioning of digital platforms. ese may be rules establishing a mandatory
procedure for internal content ltering, responding to requests and complaints, criteria
for classifying platforms by risk level, as well as special procedures for removing content
that violates rights.
e second key element is the development and practice of law enforcement. Russian
courts have already developed certain standards in cases against unscrupulous sellers on
platforms such as Wildberries, Ozon and other marketplaces for claims for the protection
of trademark rights, recovery of compensation and blocking of pages with counterfeit
products. Examples of such cases are lawsuits by international brands, in particular, New
Balance against an oending seller on Ozon (Moscow City Court, 2022)
46
or the lawsuit of
Gucci LLC against Wildberries (Moscow Arbitration Court, 2023)
47
. In addition to judicial
mechanisms, administrative procedures are of particular importance: the involvement of
Rospotrebnadzor and Rospatent in the complaint review process, the active use of digital
services to respond quickly to violation signals, and test purchases and investigations.
e third component is the introduction of modern technological solutions to track the
movement of goods and prevent counterfeit products from appearing on the market
(Pokrovskaya, 2024). Marking systems and trace&track technologies play a special role
in this, allowing you to track a product at every stage of its life cycle— from production
to nal sale. In addition, marketplaces are introducing platform self-organization tools
(Radonjic- Simic & Psterer, 2019): rating systems allow you to take into account the
opinions of buyers and reduce the visibility of sellers who have reasonable claims regarding
counterfeits. At the same time, articial intelligence and machine learning technologies
are actively used (Rane et al., 2024).— algorithms analyze product cards and identify
oers that are most typical of counterfeit goods (for example, a suspiciously low price, lack
of supporting documents, photographs that do not match trademarks, etc.).
Interaction with copyright holders and the general public also plays an important role
in preventing the spread of counterfeit goods (Fink et al., 2016). It is important to regularly
conduct information, educational and awareness campaigns for buyers, explain the risks
of purchasing counterfeit goods, and teach methods for distinguishing original products
from counterfeits. At the level of the platforms themselves, it is recommended to introduce
systems of special labels “original”, “ocial seller”, integration with the state labeling system
(“Honest Sign”) (Dmitriev, 2019), which contributes to additional transparency and protects
the end consumer. To quickly respond to violations, it is recommended to create hotlines,
implement mechanisms for promptly processing requests, and conclude agreements
between marketplaces and copyright holders on joint monitoring and suppression of
illegal actions. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that only a combination of modern
legal instruments, eective law enforcement practices, technological innovations and
close cooperation between all stakeholders can eectively counter the threat of counterfeit
46
New Balance Inc. v. OOO “Internet Resheniya” (Ozon), Moscow City Court, Case No.
3–425 / 2022, Decision of 20 July 2022.
47
Gucci LLC v. OOO “Wildberries,” Moscow Arbitration Court, CaseNo. А40–121041 / 2023–
126–1079, Decision of 9 June 2023.
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 157
products and other violations on marketplaces. An integrated approach in this area
helps reduce risks for buyers, creates a civilized e-commerce market and guarantees the
protection of property and non-property interests of copyright holders.
7.Results
As a result of the study, it was possible to identify and systematize the key
factors contributing to the spread of counterfeit products in e-commerce, as well as to
determine the main risks and shortcomings of existing models of legal protection in
this area. It was found that the main vulnerabilities of the existing control mechanisms
on marketplaces are insucient identication of sellers, anonymity of transaction
participants, lack of proper responsibility of platforms, as well as fragmentation and
inconsistency of monitoring by government and commercial structures. Practice shows
that many electronic platforms limit themselves to formal verication of sellers and do
not exercise full control over the origin of the products sold.
Analysis of industry and statistical indicators shows that for certain categories of
goods, the share of counterfeit products in the structure of online trade reaches 15–
20 % of all transactions, which is conrmed by the results of expert surveys and studies
of specialized associations. A particularly high share of counterfeits is found in the
segments of clothing, accessories, household appliances, perfumes, cosmetics and
medicines. e greatest risks of counterfeit goods turnover are typical for cross- border
transactions, primarily on marketplaces involving non-resident sellers or on platforms
located outside national jurisdiction, which signicantly complicates law enforcement,
blocking resources and holding the perpetrators accountable.
e analysis showed the ineectiveness of disparate measures to combat
counterfeiting: judicial and administrative decisions are, as a rule, local and targeted
and do not ensure a sustainable reduction in the turnover of counterfeit goods; in some
cases, violators return to platforms under dierent credentials aer being blocked. In
addition, signicant structural deciencies were identied in the interaction between
the main market participants, including insucient coordination between government
agencies, platforms, copyright holders and consumers in monitoring, considering
complaints and preventing illegal actions. Promising areas for improving legal protection
include expanding requirements for identifying and verifying sellers on marketplaces,
increasing platform liability for admitting counterfeit products, introducing mandatory
digital product labeling, using modern trace&track systems, developing self-regulation
tools and platform ltering, and creating programs to educate and improve the digital
literacy of end users. Based on the data obtained, the need for an integrated approach to
solving the problem was substantiated, combining legal, technological and information
measures, as well as international cooperation, which is a key condition for eectively
suppressing the cross- border circulation of counterfeit products. e results of the study
can be used to improve legislation, develop self-regulation standards at the business
community level, as well as create educational programs and increase consumer awareness
of counterfeit protection. e implementation of the proposed recommendations can
increase the sustainability of e-commerce, minimize risks to public safety and ensure
fair competition on digital trading platforms.
Society andSecurity Insights № 2 2025 158
8.Discussion
e issue of counterfeit goods turnover on marketplaces and in e-commerce in general,
which is addressed in the paper, nds a wide response in both the scientic, legal and
professional communities. Despite the legislative initiatives of recent years and individual
successes in the ght against counterfeiting, experts are unanimous in their opinion that the
pace of development of digital markets signicantly outpaces existing legal and organizational
mechanisms for control and protection. In the context of the constant expansion of online
trading opportunities, countries are faced with the need to nd a balance between the
freedom to do business online and the need to ensure the safety of goods turnover.
On the one hand, the development of electronic platforms helps to strengthen the
competitive environment and provides consumers with unique opportunities to choose
and save money and time. However, it is these advantages that create conditions for
abuse and easy distribution of counterfeit goods, since traditional control methods
(customs inspection, licensing, certicate verication) oen do not work in a hybrid
online environment. In practice, internal marketplace monitoring systems are
imperfect: large platforms focus mainly on user experience and service development,
while monitoring the integrity of sellers becomes a secondary task, oen performed only
formally. Consequently, the problem of distributing responsibility between the platform,
the seller, and the copyright holder comes to the fore.
e literature contains various assessments of the eectiveness of existing legislative
instruments and self-regulation mechanisms in e-commerce. Some researchers point to the
progressive nature of recent changes (for example, the liability of platforms for unscrupulous
sellers and simplied procedures for pre-trial dispute resolution), while others insist on the
need for a radical revision of the regulatory framework, taking into account the specics of the
digital economy, as well as the adaptation of best international practices, such as mandatory
due diligence programs, the introduction of global labeling systems, and the expansion of
extra- judicial blocking based on complaints from copyright holders.
A separate point of discussion is the issue of the permissible limits of state intervention
in regulating e-commerce. On the one hand, eective control is impossible without the
participation of supervisory and law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, excessive
administration and tightening of requirements can lead to limited access to the market,
increased transaction costs and a decrease in the investment attractiveness of Russian
e-commerce. A certain agreement on the optimal balance between liberalization and
protective barriers has not yet been developed, as evidenced by the heterogeneity of foreign
regulatory models (a comparison of the EU, USA, China and Russia shows dierent
approaches to blocking, marketplace liability, verication obligations, etc.). Another
controversial aspect is the role and responsibility of the consumer: on the one hand,
increasing digital and legal literacy can become an eective tool for reducing the demand
for counterfeits; on the other hand, in the conditions of an abundance of goods and a
lack of information about real sellers and product quality, the responsibility of the buyer
cannot be absolute. Here, it is important to develop mechanisms for education, product
labeling and transparency of the entire supply chain, which is not always possible to
implement solely by the market. e prospects for the introduction of modern digital tools
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 159
to combat counterfeiting are also perceived ambiguously. On the one hand, mandatory
labeling (the Honest Sign system), trace&track technologies, articial intelligence and
automated lters signicantly expand the range of control tools. However, skeptics point
to high implementation costs, uneven coverage of various product segments, as well as the
possibility of bypassing technical systems by intruders. In addition, the issue of integrating
national solutions with international platforms arises, which requires the development of
uniform standards and agreements at the interstate level. us, the ndings of the study
conrm that the ght against counterfeit goods in e-commerce is impossible within the
framework of only one area— neither the improvement of legislation, nor technological
innovations, nor consumer education can solve the problem in full. Integration of
approaches, a balance of interests of market participants, consistent legislative development
and international cooperation are required. Further practice will show how successfully
the legal protection mechanisms being introduced today will be implemented in the
context of rapidly changing forms and technologies of e-commerce.
9.Conclusion
Currently, the spread of intellectual property rights violations on marketplaces is
becoming one of the most pressing problems of e-commerce. ese violations pose a
serious threat to all market participants: copyright holders lose part of their legitimate
income and risk losing their business reputation, bona de sellers face unfair competition,
the platforms themselves may be involved in legal and administrative proceedings, and
consumers are at risk of purchasing low-quality, dangerous or illegal products.
Joint development and application of automated tools for monitoring posted content,
as well as the coordination of transparent procedures for ling and reviewing complaints,
signicantly increase the eectiveness of the ght against counterfeit products. Increasing
the transparency of procedures for reviewing violations, establishing clear response
times, and increasing liability for sellers who systematically post counterfeit goods are
becoming necessary conditions for stabilizing the situation. Particular attention should
be paid to the development of “copyright holder accounts” on marketplaces, which will
allow promptly monitoring and responding to violations. Practical recommendations
for market participants include ongoing and active interaction with copyright holders,
organizing channels for regular exchange of information about products and detected
violations, introducing modern digital and analytical tools for automatic detection of
suspicious sellers and products, as well as developing self-regulation mechanisms —
creating corporate standards and ethical codes of conduct. It is also important to inform
and train sellers regarding the requirements for the circulation of intellectual property,
their liability and the consequences of violations. e state needs to continue to improve
the regulatory framework taking into account the dynamically changing realities
of e-commerce, support the introduction of digital tools to control commodity ows
and organize programs to raise public awareness of the risks of purchasing counterfeit
goods. In addition, it is necessary to expand interaction between government agencies,
platforms and intellectual property owners, ensuring the exchange of up-to-date
information on identied violations.
Society andSecurity Insights № 2 2025 160
Only coordinated and active actions by the state, electronic platforms, copyright
holders and consumers can lead to the formation of an eective, modern and sustainable
system for protecting intellectual property on marketplaces, reducing the level of illegal
competition and restoring trust in online trading.
REFERENCES
Bieron, B., Ahmed, U. (2012). Regulating e-commerce through international policy: un-
derstanding the international trade law issues of e-commerce. Journal of World Trade,
46(3).
Chen, S. C. Y. (2014). Pirate production, intellectual property and informal sectors in de-
veloping economies. International Economic Development, 93–106.
Chua, C. E. H., Wareham, J., Robey, D. (2007). e role of online trading communities
in managing internet auction fraud. MIS Quarterly, 759–781.
Dmitriev, A. V. (2019). Digital technologies of transportation and logistics systems visi-
bility. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, 10(1), 20–26.
Farrand, B. (2018). Combatting physical threats posed via digital means: the European
Commission’s developing approach to the sale of counterfeit goods on the Internet. Eu-
ropean Politics and Society, 19(3), 338–354.
Feng, S., Sik, C. P. (2024). Multifaceted challenges of jurisdictional divergence in cross-
border intellectual property violations. International Journal of Criminal Justice Scienc-
es, 19(1), 20–40.
Fink, C., Maskus, K. E., Qian, Y. (2016). e economic eects of counterfeiting and pi-
racy: areview and implications for developing countries. e World Bank Research Ob-
server, 31(1), 1–28.
Guo, F., Ma, D., Hu, J., Zhang, L. (2021). Optimized combination of e-commerce plat-
form sales model and blockchain anti-counterfeit traceability service strategy. IEEE Ac-
cess, 9, 138082–138105.
Huang, Z., Benyoucef, M. (2013). From e-commerce to social commerce: aclose look at
design features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 246–259.
Karlovskaya, S., Chelombitko, A. (2024). Prospects for the development of cross- border
e-commerce between Russia and China. BRICS Journal of Economics, 5(2), 45–63.
Lee, H., Yeon, C. (2021). Blockchain- based traceability for anti-counterfeit in cross-
border e-commerce transactions. Sustainability, 13(19), 11057.
Li, L. (2013). Technology designed to combat fakes in the global supply chain. Business
Horizons, 56(2), 167–177.
Li, M., Lou, W., Ren, K. (2010). Data security and privacy in wireless body area networks.
IEEE Wireless Communications, 17(1), 51–58.
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 161
Mackey, T. K., Liang, B. A. (2011). e global counterfeit drug trade: patient safety and
public health risks. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 100(11), 4571–4579.
Mackey, T. K., Nayyar, G. (2017). Areview of existing and emerging digital technolo-
gies to combat the global trade in fake medicines. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, 16(5),
587–602.
Mavlanova, T., Benbunan- Fich, R. (2010). Counterfeit products on the internet: the role
of seller- level and product- level information. International Journal of Electronic Com-
merce, 15(2), 79–104.
Otim, S., Grover, V. (2010). E-commerce: a brand name’s curse. Electronic Markets,
20(2), 147–160.
Pokrovskaya, A. (2024). Issues of articial intelligence technologies application: protec-
tion of intellectual property rights on marketplaces. Russian Law Journal, 12(2), 37–50.
Purohit, M. C., Purohit, V. K. (2005). E-commerce and economic development. Founda-
tion for Public Economics and Policy Research, 1–122.
Radonjic- Simic, M., Psterer, D. (2019). Beyond platform economy: acomprehensive model for
decentralized and self-organizing markets on internet- scale. Computers, 8(4), 90.
Rane, N., Choudhary, S., Rane, J. (2024). Articial intelligence and machine learning in
business intelligence, nance, and e-commerce: areview.
Spink, J., Moyer, D. C., Park, H., Heinonen, J. A. (2013). Dening the types of counter-
feiters, counterfeiting, and oender organizations. Crime Science, 2(1), 8.
Staake, T., iesse, F., Fleisch, E. (2009). e emergence of counterfeit trade: aliterature
review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320–349.
Xue, N. (2024). Research on issues and strategies of international trade law under the
background of the rapid development of cross- border e-commerce. Science of Law Jour-
nal, 3(8), 32–41.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR / СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРЕ
AnnaV. Pokrovskaya — Assistant, Research Intern, Postgraduate student of the
Department of Civil Law and Procedure and Private RUDN University, Moscow, Russia.
Expert of patent practice national phases, Intellectual Property Center «Skolkovo»,
Moscow, Russia,
Анна Владимировна Покровская — ассистент, стажер- исследователь, аспи-
рант кафедры гражданского права ипроцесса имеждународного частного права
Российского университета дружбы народов, г.Москва, Россия. Эксперт патент-
ной практики понациональным фазам РФ, ЦИС «Сколково», г.Москва, Россия.
Статья поступила вредакцию 26.06.2025;
одобрена после рецензирования 11.09.2025;
принята кпубликации 15.09.2025.
The article was submitted 26.06.2025;
approved after reviewing 11.09.2025;
accepted for publication 15.09.2025.
