Customs agency gains power to share seller data with IP holders

What it does

This bill expands what information U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can share with intellectual property rights holders when investigating suspected trademark or patent violations in imported goods. It lowers the evidentiary bar from 'suspects' to 'has a reasonable suspicion,' broadens the types of physical evidence CBP can disclose (adding packing materials and containers), and crucially allows CBP to share nonpublic data collected by online marketplaces, freight forwarders, and other intermediaries—information those platforms provided to CBP—without the IP holder having to request it. It also requires CBP to notify recipients of what information was shared.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is not a new right or remedy for IP holders, but rather an expansion of government surveillance authority and data-sharing powers. CBP gains discretion to disclose more categories of evidence and nonpublic third-party business data on a lower suspicion threshold, benefiting IP enforcement at the expense of importer privacy and commercial confidentiality.

What the text implies

• Nonpublic marketplace and logistics data (seller identity, shipping patterns, order history, payment methods) collected by platforms and forwarding companies will now flow to CBP and be shared with IP claimants without seller consent or knowledge, creating a secondary surveillance channel outside traditional discovery.
• The 'reasonable suspicion' standard is significantly lower than 'probable cause' or 'clear evidence' and is not defined in the statute, giving CBP broad discretion to initiate information-sharing based on preliminary or circumstantial indicators.
• Small and medium-sized importers and online sellers—including those operating entirely lawfully—will face competitive disadvantage if their shipping, sourcing, and sales data is disclosed to large IP holders who can use it for market intelligence.
• The bill permits CBP to share information with 'any other party with an interest in the merchandise, as determined appropriate by the Commissioner'—a catch-all that could extend disclosure beyond the original IP claimant to competitors, investors, or other stakeholders.
• No explicit privacy safeguards, use restrictions, or audit trails are mandated for nonpublic data once disclosed; the bill only requires notification of transmission, not consent or limitation on downstream use.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

While IP protection is a legitimate public interest, this bill materially expands surveillance of ordinary importers and online sellers by lowering the evidentiary threshold and permitting CBP to disclose nonpublic business data (shipping, logistics, marketplace activity) collected from intermediaries. Small importers and sellers—many of whom operate legitimately—face increased risk of having their confidential commercial information shared with IP holders (often large corporations) on a lower s

Who stands to gain

• large intellectual property holders and brand owners
• IP enforcement firms and litigation support services
• customs brokers and trade compliance consultants

Named in the bill

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of CBP, online marketplaces, express consignment operators, freight forwarders, intellectual property rights holders, Tariff Act of 1930, Section 628A

Where it stands

6 cosponsors: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats.

• Aug 8, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Aug 8, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means”
• Dec 10, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Dec 10, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 0”
• Apr 27, 2026 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3098-3099)”
• Apr 27, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Moore (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

10 lobbying clients named this bill on 14 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $9,320,509 in lobbying spend. A filing names 12 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 91% of bills with at least one filing.

Blake Moore, the sponsor, reported $1,475,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $6,000 of that came from 2 PACs tied to these lobbying clients.

• Fedex Corporation — $2,930,000 on 1 filing
• National Association of Manufacturers — $2,030,000 on 1 filing
• Pfizer Inc. — $1,880,000 on 1 filing
• Entertainment Software Association — $1,390,000 on 1 filing
• Fdd Action — $530,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.