Related Questions
.png)
When a merchant applies to sell luxury handbags, premium electronics, or high-demand sneakers, payment processors and acquiring banks face a challenge that extends beyond standard merchant underwriting. The question is not whether the merchant has trademark rights (that belongs to brand owners). The question is whether they can legitimately source, authenticate, and support the products they claim to sell.
This is not a legal problem requiring intellectual property (IP) expertise. It is an operational verification problem that determines whether a processor handles payments for authorized resellers, gray market operators, or counterfeit fraud.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), global trade in counterfeit goods reached $467 billion USD in 2021, representing 2.3% of total global imports. For payment processors, facilitating transactions for counterfeit merchants creates chargeback liability, brand relationship damage, reputational risk, and potential regulatory scrutiny when card networks investigate fraud patterns.
The complete framework includes:
Counterfeiters depend on payment processors to operate at scale. Without merchant accounts, they are limited to cash transactions and peer-to-peer platforms with minimal volume capacity.
Underwriting controls determine whether a processor enables counterfeit operations or prevents them through evidence-based verification.
Merchants selling branded goods fall into three distinct categories, each with different risk profiles: authorized resellers (low risk), gray market operators (medium to high risk), and counterfeit fraudsters (critical risk).
Misclassifying a counterfeit operation as an authorized reseller exposes a processor to chargeback liability, brand enforcement actions that damage processor relationships, and potential scrutiny from card networks.
Standard merchant underwriting focuses on business legitimacy, financial stability, and fraud prevention. For branded goods merchants, these checks are insufficient.
Counterfeit operations often have legitimate business registrations, professional websites, and clean credit histories. The signals that expose them are operational: sourcing documentation, return capabilities, pricing economics, and warranty infrastructure.
We see effective counterfeit detection break down into five operational verification areas:
Authorized resellers provide specific supplier names, authorization letters, and verifiable distributor relationships. Gray market sellers source through liquidators, bulk brokers, or international arbitrage with documentation that reveals unauthorized channels.
Counterfeiters fabricate sourcing claims entirely. They cannot name specific suppliers, provide invoices from verifiable distributors, or demonstrate purchase volumes matching claimed sales. Red flags include generic "authorized supplier" claims without documentation, supplier addresses at residential locations, and volume claims that exceed plausible distributor capacity.
Authentic wholesale sourcing generates standard commercial documentation: supplier invoices with complete business information, payment records through commercial banking channels, and delivery documentation with tracking history.
Counterfeit operations produce fabricated invoices with missing tax identification numbers, consumer email addresses for suppliers, and payment through wire transfers to foreign accounts that legitimate distributors do not use. When purchase prices shown on invoices create margin economics that cannot support operational costs, the merchant either misrepresented costs (products are counterfeits purchased for less than authentic wholesale) or operates at losses.
Who handles defective products reveals distribution channel positioning. Authorized resellers return defective inventory to suppliers through documented Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) processes. Gray market sellers face return restrictions because upstream sources will not accept products sold outside authorized channels.
Counterfeiters have no legitimate return capability. They either offer no customer returns, absorb all returns internally at high cost, or direct customers through processes that manufacturer warranty departments reject. Testing warranty claim procedures exposes whether merchant warranty promises are functional or fraudulent.
Systematic pricing below Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policies indicates gray market sourcing or counterfeiting. Deep discounts on scarce products with waitlists or limited availability are critical risk signals, as authentic limited-edition goods do not reach unauthorized channels at significant discounts.
When selling prices fall below or marginally above claimed purchase costs (after accounting for payment processing, shipping, and returns), the economics suggest either fabricated invoicing or counterfeit inventory with lower actual costs than authentic wholesale.
Vague warranty language like "manufacturer warranty included" without specifying activation or servicing processes conceals that coverage is not valid. Authorized resellers explicitly state manufacturer warranty terms and provide registration processes through official brand channels.
Counterfeiters either promise manufacturer warranties they cannot service (knowing brands will reject claims on fake products) or offer merchant-only warranties without infrastructure to fulfill them. Zero warranty claims despite thousands of claimed sales indicates either no actual sales volume or customers who discover products are counterfeit and do not attempt warranty claims.
Organizations implementing this verification framework gain:
Risk classification accuracy
Systematic protocols to distinguish authorized resellers from gray market operators and counterfeit fraudsters during merchant onboarding.
Chargeback reduction
In our experience, counterfeit merchants generate higher dispute rates when customers discover products are fake. Preventing these merchants from onboarding reduces portfolio chargeback exposure.
Brand relationship protection
Brand owners monitor where their products are sold and enforce against unauthorized channels. Demonstrating rigorous counterfeit prevention protects processor relationships with brands and authorized merchants.
Operational consistency
Clear documentation requirements and testing protocols that underwriting teams can apply uniformly, reducing subjective judgment and training time for new analysts.
Regulatory defensibility
When card networks or regulators investigate merchant fraud patterns, documented verification procedures demonstrate due diligence and risk controls.
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.png)
