QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

Customs opens IP holders' access to secret marketplace seller data

S. 2677 — A bill to expand the sharing of information with respect to suspected violations of intellectual property rights in trade. · Filed by Chuck Grassley (R-IA) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Aug 1, 2025 · Passed chamber

65%
Transparency
Typical bill: 82%
35/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
High concernIP Enforcement Data-Sharing Expansion

Your members of Congress

Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.

Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.

What it does

This bill amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to expand 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 threshold from "suspects" to "has a reasonable suspicion," broadens the types of physical evidence CBP can disclose (adding packing materials and containers), and crucially, permits CBP to share nonpublic information obtained from online marketplaces, freight forwarders, and other intermediaries involved in the sale or import of goods—information that was previously confidential.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is not a new IP right or penalty, but rather a procedural expansion of CBP's authority to disclose confidential commercial information to private IP rights holders. It is fundamentally a data-access and surveillance-facilitation measure dressed in IP-enforcement language.

What the text implies

  • Nonpublic information from online marketplaces (seller identity, transaction patterns, supply chain details) becomes accessible to IP rights holders without explicit consent from the data subjects, creating a de facto commercial surveillance tool for large IP holders against competitors and small sellers.
  • The 'reasonable suspicion' standard is significantly lower than 'probable cause' or 'clear evidence,' meaning CBP may disclose data based on preliminary or speculative IP claims, exposing innocent importers and sellers to competitive targeting.

The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.

Who stands to gain

large intellectual property rights holders (trademark and patent owners); brand protection firms and IP enforcement agencies; online marketplace platforms (as data sources, though also subject to disclosure obligations)

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record