Every marketplace of any size has a repeat infringer policy, because the law requires it. Under 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A), a service provider only keeps its safe harbour from copyright liability if it has adopted and reasonably implemented a policy for terminating subscribers who are repeat infringers, and has told its users about it. The policy exists. The problem is that it is only triggered by evidence of repetition, and the only party in a position to document repetition against a brand is the brand itself. The platform will not build the file. The brand has to.
The EU route is structurally similar. The Digital Services Act, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, obliges online platforms to suspend users who frequently submit manifestly illegal content under Article 23, and requires marketplaces to collect and verify trader details under Article 30. Same shape, same gap: the obligation sits with the platform, but the evidence sits with the brand, and nothing happens until the brand hands it over in a form the platform can act on.
A seller-level file is a different document from a takedown notice. A takedown notice says this listing infringes. A seller file says this seller has done it before, here is the pattern, and here is the proof it is the same entity. The proof is in the details relisters get wrong when they work at speed. Their own photographs, altered slightly: cropped, mirrored, a border added, saturation bumped, the product pasted onto a different background. The brand's invented words: colourway names, model numbers, made-up materials that a relister copies without noticing because they are copying text, not thinking about it. The same account details, the same shipping origin, the same storefront structure, the same review patterns.
Build the file as a timeline, not a pile. Each incident gets a date, the listing identifier, the seller identifier, the evidence of infringement, and the outcome: removed, relisted, counter-noticed. The timeline is what turns three separate complaints into a pattern a trust and safety team can act on. Three complaints filed separately are three ASINs. Three complaints in one file with a timeline are a repeat infringer.
When the file is ready, the ask is specific: review the account under the repeat infringer policy, not the listing under the takedown policy. Name the policy. Cite the section. In the US, that is 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A). In the EU, it is DSA Article 23. The platform's first-line reviewers process takedowns; the repeat infringer decision sits with a different team, and the request has to reach them. A takedown filed as a takedown gets a takedown. A file submitted as a repeat infringer case gets an account review.
And treat the fortnight after a successful takedown as a live window, not a finish line. Sometimes a removal produces a counter-notice rather than a relisting, and the clock there is set by statute: under 17 U.S.C. 512(g), once a valid counter-notice arrives the platform restores the material in not less than 10 and not more than 14 business days, unless the complainant files a court action. If a counter-notice arrives, the brand has a decision to make about whether that specific listing is worth a court filing, and for a 40-dollar product the honest answer is usually no. The file is what makes the next takedown faster, and the one after that an account termination instead.
Keep reading: What a UDRP Complaint Can Do That a Takedown Cannot, Why a Takedown Win Can Make the Next Fake Harder to Find, and Live Shopping, Live Fakes: The Stream That Sells Counterfeits Before Moderation Acts cover the nearby cases in this series.
Under 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A), a platform only keeps its safe harbour if it has a policy for terminating subscribers who are repeat infringers. The policy only triggers on evidence of repetition.
Look for what relisters get wrong at speed: slightly altered photos, copied colourway names and model numbers, the same shipping origin and storefront structure. Build a timeline with dates, listing IDs, and seller IDs.
Ask for an account review under the repeat infringer policy, not another listing takedown. Name the policy and cite the section. The decision sits with a different team than first-line takedown reviewers.
Under 17 U.S.C. 512(g), the platform restores the material in 10 to 14 business days unless you file a court action. For a low-value product, the honest answer is usually not to sue, but to keep building the file.