Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights:
2. Introduction
3. How Entrupy measured the counterfeit market: scope, scale, and the “trust gap”
4. Where counterfeits concentrate: materials, simplicity, and brand mechanics
5. Footwear and the sneaker economy: high stakes, high imitation
6. Apparel as the new frontline: why garments now lead exposure
7. Brand vulnerability: how product strategy shapes risk
8. Regional dynamics: why infrastructure matters more than scale
9. Technology and tactics: microscopic forensics, AI models, and the limits of human inspection
10. Business consequences: trust erosion, operational costs, and strategic shifts
11. Practical guidance for consumers: spotting risk and protecting purchases
12. What retailers and marketplaces should do now
13. Policy levers and enforcement: where governments can help
14. Counterfeiting’s broader economic and cultural impact
15. Steps brands should take now: product, process, partnership
16. Emerging technologies to watch
17. Four realistic scenarios for the resale market by 2030
18. Measuring progress: metrics that matter
19. FAQ

Key Highlights:

• Entrupy’s 2025 analysis processed $3.7 billion of resale inventory and identified a $3.34 billion “trust gap,” with 8.1% of luxury items flagged as unidentified and apparel showing a 37.5% unidentified rate.
• Counterfeit concentration shifts with materials and demand: canvas and nylon goods—Prada’s nylon bags among them—are easiest to replicate, while sneakers and certain high-price, logo-driven footwear segments show sharply elevated fake rates (Louis Vuitton footwear: 54.1%; Dior footwear: 42.5%).
• Regional infrastructure matters: APAC posted the lowest fake rate (7.5%) despite the highest market value, while the Americas account for the vast majority of apparel authentication volume and display widely varying state-level risk patterns.

Introduction

Entrupy’s 2025 “State of the Fake” report delivers a stark, data-driven snapshot of counterfeit activity across luxury goods, footwear, and apparel. The New York–based authentication company ran forensic checks on billions of dollars of items in the resale market and uncovered not just the prevalence of fakes but the changing logic of the fake economy: counterfeiters adapt to materials and market dynamics, targeting what can be produced quickly and resold with minimal friction. That adaptation is accelerating. The firm’s $3.7 billion sample reveals a sector under strain—retailers, brands and consumers increasingly must decide whether to accept higher risk, build new defenses, or both.

This analysis explains Entrupy’s findings, identifies where counterfeit risk is concentrated, and examines the technological and operational responses reshaping authentication. It evaluates the differences between categories—handbags, sneakers, apparel—explores how materials and branding affect vulnerability, and traces regional disparities tied to infrastructure. Practical guidance for consumers and retailers follows, along with policy and industry recommendations designed to close the growing trust gap.

How large is the problem? Entrupy’s data provides a measurable baseline. How quickly must the industry respond? The report’s emphasis on speed—of counterfeit production, of resale transactions, and of technological detection—makes that question urgent. The remainder of this piece dissects the numbers, clarifies the drivers, and maps a path forward for stakeholders who depend on the integrity of physical goods and the markets that trade them.

How Entrupy measured the counterfeit market: scope, scale, and the “trust gap”

Entrupy has built its reputation on algorithmic and forensic authentication. Its 2025 dataset is noteworthy for both breadth and financial scale: the company processed over $3.7 billion worth of products and identified a market value of $3.34 billion across luxury, footwear and apparel, plus $294 million in supply-chain protection. These figures represent the value of inventory routed through Entrupy’s systems—not total global resale volume—but they capture a meaningful cross-section of the secondary market during 2025.

Key metrics from the report:

• 91.9% of luxury items scanned were deemed authentic; 8.1% were flagged as unidentified (the report’s term for items that could not be authenticated with confidence).
• Footwear displayed a higher unidentified rate than handbags, with sneakers generally outpacing other categories in fraudulent incidence.
• Apparel emerged as the most vulnerable segment after Entrupy expanded into clothing authentication in 2025: roughly 37.5% of apparel items could not be authenticated.

Entrupy’s CEO framed the findings around a “trust gap.” That gap is the difference between what the market is worth nominally and the portion of that value that is or may be compromised by suspect authenticity. Economically, the trust gap translates into lost demand, increased due diligence costs, and reputational exposure for brands and marketplaces. Operationally, it forces malls, marketplaces and resellers to deploy new layers of verification and to partner with technology providers capable of granular forensic analysis.

Entrupy’s methods combine image analysis, microscopic forensics and machine learning models trained on extensive datasets. The company’s expansion into apparel in 2025 revealed a previously under-measured frontline: garments, because of fabrication and distribution patterns, now represent a primary vector for counterfeit proliferation.

Where counterfeits concentrate: materials, simplicity, and brand mechanics

Counterfeiters do not attack brands randomly. They focus where replication is fastest, cheapest, and most likely to produce resale value. The report highlights three structural drivers of concentration:

1. Material replicability
2. Simplicity of design and branding
3. Market demand and resale dynamics

Material replicability Products made from canvas, nylon and other engineered textiles are easier to reproduce than many leather goods. Entrupy’s analysis points to this as a core reason Prada’s nylon silhouettes and other textile-based items attract disproportional counterfeit supply. Imitating grain patterns, creasing and complex leather curing processes remains difficult for mass counterfeit operations. Nylon, on the other hand, can be sourced or fabricated to approximate appearance quickly and at scale.

Simplicity of design and branding Accessible items with minimal artisanal detailing—think basics adorned with a simple logo—offer counterfeiters a favorable cost-to-reward ratio. When branding is straightforward and demand is steady, knockoffs find buyers in secondary channels and mass-market platforms. The report notes that “accessible, high-demand basics with simple branding and steady resale appeal are the easiest targets.”

Market demand and resale dynamics High demand drives attention. Sneakers are a clear example: a winner-take-most structure centered on a handful of brands and models makes the category attractive for counterfeiters. Luxury handbags occupy high total value, but some brands’ exclusivity and controlled distribution insulate them to an extent. Chanel, for instance, produced roughly $959 million in scanned value with comparatively low fake penetration because exclusivity maintains resale discipline and value.

Combined, these drivers explain why counterfeit activity can migrate swiftly. When a brand tightens controls or adopts more complex materials, counterfeiters pivot to other labels whose materials or business models are easier to mimic.

Footwear and the sneaker economy: high stakes, high imitation

Footwear presents a paradox: sneakers generate enormous demand and prize authenticity, yet they show elevated rates of fraud. Entrupy’s data put the unidentified rate for footwear at roughly 11.1%, about three percentage points higher than handbags. Several dynamics shape this outcome:

• Market concentration: A small number of players, led by Nike, dominate volume. Nike accounted for more than 80% of authentication volume within footwear. Dominant market share creates attractive scale for counterfeiters who can reproduce mass-market silhouettes and logos while capturing resale-minded buyers.
• Logo-driven demand: Luxury sneaker segments with conspicuous logos and collaborations—Louis Vuitton and Dior, cited in the report—saw very high fake rates. Louis Vuitton footwear posted an unidentified rate of 54.1% and Dior 42.5%. High price points and strong brand signifiers such as monograms or visible designer marks amplify counterfeiting incentives.
• Production complexity and model turnover: Sneakers often have bold materials and construction features that are difficult to inspect quickly in online listings. Limited drops and hype cycles accelerate secondary sales, sometimes before careful provenance checks can be applied.

The sneaker market’s structure encourages rapid circulation: hyped releases and limited editions move through social channels, resellers, and peer-to-peer platforms. That movement gives counterfeit goods a path to market. When resale marketplaces cannot keep pace with forensic authentication, buyer confidence falls.

Examples in practice: a consumer monitoring a hyped drop may encounter an appealing secondhand listing at a fraction of retail. Without authentication safeguards—technical verification, seller reputation, or proof of purchase—they risk buying a convincing fake. Entrupy’s data suggests this scenario remains common and that luxury labels with prominent logos and high secondary-market value are particularly susceptible.

Apparel as the new frontline: why garments now lead exposure

When Entrupy included apparel in 2025, the data exposed an urgent problem. Apparel showed a 37.5% unidentified rate—nearly one in three garments could not be authenticated. Several factors explain apparel’s vulnerability:

• Fragmented distribution: Clothing passes through a wider and less controlled set of distribution channels than most luxury handbags. Fast fashion, mass-market diffusion, and large-scale e-commerce create many points where counterfeit items can mix with legitimate inventory.
• Ease of replication for basics: T-shirts, hoodies, and simple knitwear with prominent logos can be reproduced cheaply and at scale. The report identifies “mass-hype diffusion” brands—labels that combine accessible price points with heavy online buzz—as especially targeted.
• Reseller ecosystem: Apparel resale skews regional and domestic. Entrupy noted the Americas represent 99% of apparel authentication volume, showing both a heavy concentration of secondhand activity and a vulnerability where scaled marketplaces have not yet universally adopted forensic checks.
• Brand practices: Brands with tight distribution and resale control (for example, those that restrict authorized resellers or enforce gated communities for drops) show lower counterfeit penetration. Brands with open, diffuse channels expose themselves to greater risk.

Case studies from the report underline the divide. Fear of God Essentials recorded an unidentified rate of 95.75%. BAPE’s unidentified rate reached 85%, and Atlanta’s Sp5der hit 61%. By contrast, Supreme and Off-White—brands with more mature resale control—showed significantly lower rates. The contrast indicates that governance, not just prestige, determines exposure.

The apparel category’s fragmentation complicates enforcement. A counterfeit T-shirt can be printed regionally and distributed through a local marketplace faster than international enforcement actions can block it. That speed is central to Entrupy’s concern: the counterfeit cycle’s tempo outpaces many existing detection and enforcement models.

Brand vulnerability: how product strategy shapes risk

Brands’ susceptibility to counterfeiting is not solely a function of fame. Product strategy—materials, price point, distribution discipline, and reliance on visible logos—drives outcomes as much as prestige does.

• Heritage luxury vs. diffusion labels: Heritage brands with strict control over production and distribution, such as Chanel, benefit from scarcity strategies that raise barriers to counterfeiters. Their products require specialized craftsmanship or complex finishing, which challenges mass reproduction.
• Diffusion and hype brands: Labels that trade on access and visible branding—streetwear and essentials—create fertile ground for counterfeit operations. High demand combined with simple production processes means counterfeiters can meet market appetite quickly.
• Collaboration and limited drops: Collaborative capsules and limited editions generate intense demand and quick secondary sales, creating windows that counterfeiters exploit. The faster a hyped item changes hands, the slimmer the window for reliable authentication.
• Pricing strategies: High price points can either deter cheap knockoffs or attract sophisticated counterfeits designed to command higher resale prices. Entrupy’s footwear numbers—particularly Louis Vuitton’s and Dior’s—illustrate how high prices plus conspicuous branding can produce intense counterfeit attention.

Brands can mitigate risk through product choices: using materials that are harder to duplicate, introducing proprietary trims and hardware, and embedding unique markers that are hard for counterfeiters to replicate.

Regional dynamics: why infrastructure matters more than scale

Entrupy’s regional breakdown reveals a clear pattern: investment in authentication infrastructure reduces counterfeit incidence, even where market scale is large.

• Asia-Pacific (APAC): Though APAC registered the highest market value ($1.67 billion of scanned items), it reported the lowest fake rate at 7.5%. The report credits heavy investment in authentication infrastructure and a mature resale ecosystem for this outcome. When marketplaces, logistics providers, and brand partners coordinate verification processes, counterfeit penetration falls.
• Americas: The region accounts for 99% of apparel authentication volume and shows higher risk profiles in certain categories. In luxury, the Americas’ fake rate was 8.8%, higher than APAC despite lower total volume. The disparity underscores the difference between size and structure: a large market without comparable authentication infrastructure invites greater fraud.
• Europe and Middle East (E&ME): This region made up 11.3% of market share with a 7.9% risk share—closer to APAC’s outcomes than the Americas in several respects. This suggests pockets of mature resale ecosystems and enforced authentication practices across E&ME.

Sub-national patterns are stark. Arizona, for example, recorded an unidentified apparel rate of 97.21%—the highest in the United States. The report bluntly labels Arizona “the fakest state,” noting that nearly every apparel item submitted for authentication there turned out to be fake. The statistic indicates how local marketplaces, return policies, and enforcement resources can dramatically affect fraud exposure.

These patterns suggest a clear intervention point: strengthening local and regional authentication infrastructure—from customs and postal inspections to marketplace-level verification—reduces counterfeit circulation more effectively than countermeasures focused on advertising takedowns or isolated enforcement.

Technology and tactics: microscopic forensics, AI models, and the limits of human inspection

Entrupy’s growth and the depth of its dataset rest on technological innovation. The firm combines microscopic forensic imaging with machine learning models trained on massive image libraries. That combination identifies features invisible to the naked eye: stitching microvariations, material microtextures, and manufacturing anomalies that betray a product’s origin.

Key aspects of technological response include:

• Microscopic feature extraction: High-magnification imaging exposes thread structure, dye patterns and surface topology that counterfeiters struggle to replicate consistently.
• Machine learning classification: Algorithms trained on labeled datasets learn to differentiate genuine vs. counterfeit manufacturing signatures even when visual inspections appear identical.
• Scalability via APIs and platform integrations: Entrupy partners with resale platforms—TikTok Shop is cited as an example—to add authentication at the point of sale or listing. Scalable APIs allow marketplaces to route high-risk listings for rapid verification.
• Digital traceability: Technologies such as RFID, NFC tags, and blockchain-backed product IDs can extend authentication beyond post-sale scrutiny. When combined with physical markings, these systems form multi-layered verification that is harder to falsify end-to-end.

Limitations persist. Counterfeiters invest in tooling and processes that erode superficial detection methods. Some high-quality fakes leverage near-identical materials and replicated hardware, requiring increasingly granular detection. The “speed of the counterfeit cycle” that Entrupy emphasizes is not only about production velocity; it’s about the rate at which counterfeit techniques evolve to beat existing detection.

Human inspection alone cannot reliably confront this evolution. The microscopic distinctions Entrupy’s models exploit are subtle and often inconsistent across production runs. Automated systems that can rapidly analyze image data at scale fill a necessary role.

Real-world integration: marketplaces that combine seller vetting, platform-level imaging requirements, and third-party authentication services significantly reduce fraud incidence. The TikTok Shop–Entrupy relationship demonstrates how embedded verification can operate upstream of resale transactions, preventing suspect listings from reaching buyers.

Business consequences: trust erosion, operational costs, and strategic shifts

The trust gap is not an abstract metric. For brands and retailers, the consequences are operational and financial:

• Eroded consumer trust: Buyers who repeatedly encounter counterfeits develop skepticism toward platforms and categories. Reduced confidence depresses willingness to pay and can shift buyer behavior toward more expensive, controlled channels.
• Increased operational costs: Authentication, returns handling, legal enforcement and platform moderation inflate overhead. Retailers and resale platforms must quantify tradeoffs between user growth and the expense of policing fraud.
• Reputation risk: Brands implicated in counterfeit scandals—whether due to lax distribution or poor platform governance—face reputational damage that can affect demand and investor confidence.
• Redistribution of channels: Some brands respond by creating brand-controlled resale channels or strict authorized reseller networks. These moves can cannibalize informal marketplaces but regain control over provenance and price integrity.

The $294 million Entrupy reported in supply chain protection signals a growing market: retailers and brands willing to purchase verification services to safeguard inventory, particularly during transit and returns. For resale platforms, third-party authentication becomes a competitive differentiator: platforms that guarantee item authenticity can attract higher-value listings and discerning buyers.

Investors and insurers are taking note. As authenticity tools mature, underwriting models for returned goods, warranty claims and itemized insurance are shifting to account for provenance verification capabilities. Platforms with integrated authentication can negotiate better risk terms.

Practical guidance for consumers: spotting risk and protecting purchases

Consumers can reduce exposure by combining prudence with emerging verification tools. Key practices:

• Buy from authorized channels when possible: Brand boutiques, authorized retailers and tightly controlled resale platforms offer the highest baseline confidence.
• Demand provenance: Request receipts, original packaging, and any provenance paperwork. A lack of these documents increases risk.
• Use platform-authenticated listings: Prefer marketplaces that partner with independent authenticators or offer in-house verification services.
• Inspect product details: For textiles, examine pattern alignment, label placement, stitching quality and hardware markings. For leather, look for grain consistency and finishing marks that are difficult to fake.
• Beware of deals that undercut market value substantially: Prices that appear too good to be true usually are.
• Use authentication services: Where available, use image-based or in-person authentication services before completing a purchase.

These steps do not eliminate risk but reduce it. When buying high-value items in online marketplaces, overlap these practices—combine platform verification, seller ratings, provenance documentation and a clear return policy.

What retailers and marketplaces should do now

Entrupy’s findings imply an operational checklist for platforms and sellers seeking to reduce the trust gap:

• Integrate authentication at scale: Partner with third-party authenticators or build internal capabilities that verify items before finalizing transactions.
• Require detailed listing standards: Enforce high-resolution images, multiple angles, and macro shots for items above a threshold price.
• Reward authenticated sellers: Create incentives—fee reductions, better discoverability—for sellers who consistently provide authenticated goods.
• Build rapid-response takedown workflows: Speed reduces the window counterfeiters exploit during hyped drops.
• Implement unique product markers: Use serialized tags, RFID/NFC chips, or secure hardware that buyers and marketplaces can verify digitally.
• Share data across platforms: Develop industry alliances to share signatures of known counterfeit tools, fraudulent seller IDs and suspicious distribution patterns.
• Train staff in forensic inspection: Equip returns teams and authenticity specialists with knowledge and tools to identify suspect items quickly.

Investment in these operational areas produces measurable reductions in counterfeit penetration because it raises the cost and complexity for counterfeiters to bring goods to market.

Policy levers and enforcement: where governments can help

Counterfeit proliferation is not only a commercial problem; it’s a regulatory issue that intersects public safety, intellectual property and cross-border trade. Policymakers can take steps that complement industry actions:

• Improve customs screening for suspect consignments: Targeted inspection and coordinated intelligence sharing can intercept bulk counterfeit shipments before they enter consumer markets.
• Support technology adoption: Grants or tax incentives for SMEs and marketplaces to adopt authentication tools can broaden market-level defenses.
• Enhance platform liability frameworks: Regulatory clarity on marketplace responsibilities for listing authenticity can motivate better enforcement and resource allocation.
• Encourage public-private partnerships: Governments can coordinate with industry players to establish common standards and repositories for known counterfeit signatures, helping smaller marketplaces access sophisticated verification intelligence.

These measures reduce friction for platforms implementing authentication and help level the playing field so that smaller retailers are not forced to compete with unscrupulous operators.

Counterfeiting’s broader economic and cultural impact

Counterfeiting affects more than buyer wallets. Its economic footprint includes lost brand revenue, diverted employment from legitimate producers, and an informal economy that can feed organized criminal networks. Culturally, counterfeit goods complicate the meaning of authenticity and ownership in consumption practices, particularly where status goods and visible branding are central to identity.

The resale market—while offering sustainability benefits and extended product life—relies on trust. A strong secondary market supports brand value by offering certified channels for trade, unlocking lifecycle revenue for owners. A weak market, riddled with counterfeits, suppresses pricing, reduces demand for authenticated pre-owned goods, and dampens the environmental benefits resale can provide.

Entrupy’s report quantifies an economic trust deficit. Closing that deficit will require investment from brands, platforms, governments and technology providers. Progress will look like more authenticated transactions, fewer illicit listings, and a restored willingness among consumers to pay for pre-owned goods at fair market value.

Steps brands should take now: product, process, partnership

Brands can reduce counterfeit exposure through deliberate product and process choices:

• Design with authentication in mind: Add proprietary hardware, micro-etchings, or textile patterns that are difficult to reproduce at scale.
• Control distribution: Limit authorized resellers, monitor gray markets, and shut down persistent counterfeit-friendly channels.
• Embrace digital IDs: Register products with secure digital certificates from point of manufacture through resale.
• Partner with trusted authenticators: Embed authentication checks at key lifecycle points—sale, return, and secondary listings.
• Communicate with customers: Provide clear information on how to identify genuine goods and how the brand validates authenticity.

These measures involve tradeoffs—some restrict wide distribution or raise production costs—but they preserve brand value and protect long-term demand.

Emerging technologies to watch

Several technologies are poised to reshape authentication and provenance:

• Advanced imaging and AI: Continual improvements in machine vision and model generalization will boost detection accuracy while reducing manual workloads.
• Secure physical tokens: Tamper-evident NFC, RFID and ultra-secure labels create verifiable links between physical items and digital records.
• Distributed ledgers: Blockchain or other tamper-resistant ledgers allow immutable registration of serial numbers and ownership transfers, aiding provenance for resale.
• Multi-factor authentication frameworks: Combining physical markers, digital certificates and platform-level verification yields stronger defenses than any single approach.

Adoption will depend on cost, interoperability, and buy-in across manufacturing and retail ecosystems. Widespread gains happen when markers and verification systems are standardized across brands and platforms.

Four realistic scenarios for the resale market by 2030

Entrupy’s data suggests distinct trajectories depending on how stakeholders respond:

1. Infrastructure-led maturation: Marketplaces and regulators adopt robust authentication standards. Counterfeiting diminishes as cost and risk rise. Resale thrives with high consumer confidence.
2. Fragmented arms race: Counterfeiters increasingly match technological safeguards, forcing an ongoing cycle of escalation. Authentication costs rise but stay necessary.
3. Platform differentiation: Major platforms invest heavily in authentication and capture high-value buyers. Smaller platforms struggle or specialize in lower-value, higher-risk goods.
4. Defensive retreat: Brands retreat from resale exposure by restricting sales and making authenticated channels exclusive. Secondary market shrinks, and informal trade grows in opaque venues.

Evidence from APAC suggests the first scenario is achievable when infrastructure and governance align. The path the rest of the world takes depends on investment and regulatory will.

Measuring progress: metrics that matter

To track whether anti-counterfeit efforts work, stakeholders should report and monitor a small set of clear metrics:

• Authentication volume and pass/fail rates across categories and regions
• Time-to-authentication (how fast a listing is authenticated after being posted)
• Rate of removal for fraudulent listings and recidivism (repeat offenders)
• Consumer trust indicators: percentage of buyers willing to pay a premium for authenticated goods
• Supply chain interceptions: volume and value of counterfeit consignments intercepted in transit

Standardizing these measures across platforms and brands will create transparency and enable benchmarking.

FAQ

Q: How common are counterfeit luxury items in the resale market? A: Entrupy’s 2025 dataset found that 91.9% of luxury items scanned were authenticated, leaving 8.1% flagged as unidentified. However, exposure varies by category and brand: luxury handbags generally show lower rates than footwear and apparel, while specific labels and product types—such as monogram-heavy Louis Vuitton or textile-based Prada nylon bags—face unique challenges.

Q: Which categories are most at risk? A: Apparel and footwear show the highest vulnerability in Entrupy’s analysis. Apparel produced the highest unidentified rate at about 37.5% after Entrupy expanded into clothing authentication. Footwear had an overall unidentified rate of around 11.1%, with certain luxury sneaker lines far higher—Louis Vuitton footwear at 54.1% and Dior at 42.5%.

Q: Why are some brands more targeted than others? A: Counterfeiters prioritize ease of replication, steady resale demand and visible branding. Brands whose high-demand items are simple to reproduce—textile-heavy bags, basic logo garments, or popular sneaker silhouettes—attract more fakes. Distribution control and resale governance also influence exposure: tightly regulated brands show lower counterfeit penetration.

Q: How does Entrupy detect fakes? A: Entrupy uses microscopic forensic imaging and machine learning models trained on large datasets of genuine and counterfeit items. The technology identifies microtextures, stitching patterns and manufacturing signatures that are difficult for human inspection to detect consistently at scale.

Q: Are some regions safer than others? A: Yes. Entrupy’s regional data shows APAC with the largest scanned market value ($1.67 billion) but the lowest fake rate at 7.5%, attributed to significant investment in authentication infrastructure and mature resale ecosystems. The Americas show high apparel authentication volume but larger variability and higher risk in some categories.

Q: What should consumers do to avoid buying fakes? A: Purchase from authorized retailers or resale platforms with integrated authentication. Request provenance documents and high-resolution images. Avoid listings with prices well below market value. Use third-party or platform authentication services when available.

Q: What can retailers and platforms do immediately? A: Implement mandatory high-resolution listing standards for higher-value items, integrate third-party authenticators, require serial numbers or digital IDs, incentivize authenticated sellers, and maintain rapid takedown and enforcement workflows.

Q: Will technology solve the counterfeit problem? A: Technology will substantially reduce counterfeit circulation by making detection faster and more accurate, but it is not a singular solution. Counterfeiters will adapt. The most durable progress comes from combining technology with better distribution control, regulatory enforcement, and cross-platform data sharing.

Q: How should policymakers respond? A: Policymakers can enhance customs screening, support technology adoption through incentives, clarify marketplace liability, and foster public-private partnerships to maintain shared repositories of counterfeit signatures. Targeted regulatory steps can lower the operational burden on platforms and standardize enforcement.

Q: What is the outlook for resale if action is not taken? A: Without broader infrastructure investment, counterfeiters will continue to exploit gaps in distribution and authentication. Resale markets may fragment, with high-trust platforms commanding value and smaller channels attracting more fraudulent goods. Consumer confidence and willingness to transact in secondhand markets could decline, reducing both economic and sustainability benefits.

Entrupy’s 2025 analysis underscores a fundamental truth: authenticity is a systemic challenge requiring systemic solutions. The numbers make the stakes clear. The response will determine not only how much counterfeit activity the market tolerates, but whether resale can scale as a trusted, sustainable component of modern consumption.