A brand wins a takedown and the counterfeit is gone. The next morning it is back, same photos, same price, new ASIN, new seller name. The brand files again, wins again, and the loop runs a third time. The problem is not the enforcement. The problem is the level it works at. Takedowns remove listings. Counterfeiters sell units, and a unit with no serial code can be listed under any ASIN.
Amazon's Transparency program changes the level. Every unit carries a unique serialized code, and Amazon rejects units at the fulfillment center when the code is invalid or missing. The counterfeiter cannot relist what the warehouse will not accept.
Transparency assigns a unique alphanumeric code to every unit a brand produces, printed on the packaging as a QR-style code. When a shipment arrives at a fulfillment center, Amazon scans the codes. A unit with a valid code passes. A unit with a missing, duplicated, or invalid code is rejected before it ever reaches a listing.
The code is tied to the unit, not the listing, which is what breaks the relist loop. A counterfeiter who copies the listing can create a new ASIN in minutes. A counterfeiter who copies the product still has to get the units past the scan, and the scan checks the code, not the listing. Amazon reported seizing more than 15 million counterfeit units in 2025, and Transparency is the program that catches them at the warehouse door rather than after the sale.
Transparency is not free. The brand pays per unit for the codes and for the printing or labeling, and the program requires Brand Registry enrollment first. That puts it out of reach for a brand selling a few hundred units a year, and squarely in range for a brand whose counterfeit problem is measured in thousands of units.
The program fits best where the counterfeit is a physical copy of a real product: supplements, cosmetics, electronics, apparel. It fits poorly where the counterfeit is a digital good or a service, because there is no unit to code. A brand with a relist loop and a physical product should run the numbers on per-unit cost against the revenue the counterfeits are taking.
Transparency stops counterfeits at Amazon's fulfillment centers. It does not stop a seller shipping direct from their own warehouse, and it does not stop a counterfeit sold on another marketplace. A brand that enrolls in Transparency and stops filing takedowns has traded one gap for another.
The program also depends on the brand's own discipline. Every unit has to carry a code, and a shipment with uncoded units gets rejected alongside the counterfeits. The onboarding is a supply-chain change, not a settings change, and it takes weeks to roll out across a production run.
Keep reading: File by Seller, Not by Listing: The Repeat Infringer Paper Trail, Why a Takedown Win Can Make the Next Fake Harder to Find, Live Shopping, Live Fakes: The Stream That Sells Counterfeits Before Moderation Acts cover the nearby cases in this series.
Every unit carries a unique serialized code, and Amazon scans codes at the fulfillment center. A unit with a missing, duplicated, or invalid code is rejected before it reaches a listing, so the counterfeiter cannot relist the same product under a new ASIN.
No. It stops counterfeits at Amazon's fulfillment centers only. A seller shipping from their own warehouse or selling on another marketplace is unaffected, so brands still need takedown filings for other channels.
The brand pays per unit for the codes and for printing or labeling, and Brand Registry enrollment is required first. The cost makes sense for brands whose counterfeit problem is measured in thousands of units, less so for a few hundred a year.
A copied code fails the scan because each code is unique to one unit. A duplicate code on a second unit gets flagged. The protection is the uniqueness of the code, not the secrecy of the printing.