How is online brand protection evolving amid the social commerce surge?
- Deeksha Chaudhry
- Oct 16
- 4 min read
Updated: 1 day ago
A few years ago, social media was just about conversations and community. Today, it has transformed into the world’s most vibrant shopping mall.
From Instagram Reels to TikTok videos and live shopping sessions, social platforms have become powerful retail engines, a phenomenon now known as social commerce.
In short, social commerce is shopping directly through social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok, where people discover and buy products without leaving the app.
But along with opportunity comes a growing challenge. As shopping merges seamlessly with scrolling, brand impersonation, counterfeit listings, and fake accounts have exploded across these same platforms.
In fact, industry data indicates that social media enforcement cases have nearly doubled in the last year, marking a new era for online brand protection.
When content turns into commerce
The line between e-commerce and social media has blurred beyond recognition. A single post, a short video, or even a livestream can trigger instant purchases, often without users ever leaving the app.
For legitimate brands, this shift has opened doors to creativity, personalization, and massive reach. But it’s also invited bad actors who use the same tools to deceive consumers, blending fake products and fraudulent offers into the same feeds that drive real engagement.
Platforms like Instagram and TikTok are now full-fledged marketplaces, and that makes them fertile ground for counterfeiters.
What’s driving the enforcement spike?
The enforcement surge we’re seeing today is not random. It’s the result of a few strong currents converging at once:
1. The rise of live commerce
Selling in real time through live videos has become one of the biggest trends in social commerce. Unfortunately, it’s also a goldmine for counterfeit sellers. With ephemeral content and limited replay visibility, fake product demonstrations can happen and vanish before platforms can even act.
Recent reports from Asia show this clearly: authorities in South Korea seized over 9,000 counterfeit items this year from live commerce streams, with most cases recorded in just the last few months.
2. The mainstreaming of “dupe culture”
“Dupes,” cheaper lookalikes of popular brands, have gone mainstream, especially among Gen Z audiences. While some dupe products stay within legal bounds, many are outright infringements packaged as harmless alternatives.
The problem? These fakes often circulate through influencer-driven posts, private groups, and short video channels that traditional monitoring tools struggle to track.
3. Repeat offenders and disappearing content
Enforcement teams are battling a new kind of evasive behavior. Counterfeit sellers often reappear under slightly changed usernames, or they hide behind “private” accounts that vanish after a takedown.
Some now rely on stories and disappearing content to stay under the radar, forcing brands to invest in continuous monitoring rather than one-off cleanup efforts.
4. Platforms are finally fighting back
The good news is social platforms are taking brand abuse more seriously than ever.
Meta and Christian Louboutin recently joined forces in a legal action targeting counterfeit product listings.
TikTok Shop has removed hundreds of thousands of fake listings and launched enhanced IP protection tools.
In India, courts have introduced “dynamic ”injunctions”—proactive orders that help brands block repeat infringers faster.
These moves mark a turning point, signaling that collaboration between platforms, brands, and regulators is becoming essential to restoring digital trust.
The numbers tell the story
Over 17,000+ counterfeit-related complaints have been recorded in India since 2022, with more than 7,000 cases in 2025 alone.
A major European footwear label uncovered 3,000+ fake listings across social media platforms and paid ads, achieving nearly 97% takedown success after implementing advanced monitoring tools.
In Asia, livestream counterfeit cases are now growing at double-digit rates annually, outpacing traditional e-commerce violations.
These figures paint a clear picture that social media has become the new frontline for brand protection.
Why traditional enforcement isn’t enough?
Traditional takedown workflows were built for static content listings on marketplaces, websites, or search engines.
But today’s counterfeiters operate in motion: live streams, influencer collaborations, private group sales, and algorithm-driven discovery.
Detection technology must evolve beyond keyword scans and manual reporting. The new reality requires:
AI-driven image recognition to identify fakes even when visuals are altered.
Cross-platform monitoring that detects patterns across multiple apps.
Faster escalation frameworks that connect legal enforcement with platform moderation teams.
The way forward for brands
To keep pace with the social commerce boom, brands need to rethink how they approach digital enforcement. A few key steps can make a big difference:
Monitor continuously and not periodically. Social platforms move fast, which implies that enforcement must move faster.
Invest in visual detection tools that recognize logos, packaging, and product similarities automatically.
Collaborate directly with platforms and industry networks to enable faster takedowns.
Educate your customers on identifying authentic sources and official brand handles.
Secure your domain and digital assets. Counterfeiters often combine fake domains with social accounts to appear legitimate.
Final thoughts
Social commerce isn’t slowing down, and neither are the threats that come with it. The brands that thrive in this new landscape will be the ones that treat online brand protection as a core part of customer experience, not just a legal necessity.
At LdotR, we believe that trust is the true currency of the digital economy. As the lines between shopping, sharing, and socializing continue to blur, protecting that trust has never been more critical.
You can check: Online Brand Protection | LdotR
Comments