Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to enhance the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to share information with respect to merchandise suspected of violating intellectual property rights with rights holders and other interested parties.
Description: This bill authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to request assistance from any appropriate party with an interest in imported merchandise when determining whether the merchandise is imported in violation of certain trademark and copyright laws. To permit the party to conduct examination and testing, CBP must provide them with specified information that appears on the merchandise, including its packaging and packing materials (including labels).
Sponsors: Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals employed by and dependent on industries producing or importing goods subject to IP scrutiny
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The bill affects companies and businesses with registered trademarks or copyrights as they can receive more information about suspected infringements.
- Consumers might face impacts if certain goods are stopped from entering the market due to intellectual property issues, potentially influencing availability and prices.
- Companies involved in the importation and distribution of goods will be impacted by the enhanced information sharing and potentially increased enforcement.
- Workers employed in industries reliant on imported goods or involved in rights protection may be affected.
- Intellectual property law enforcement agencies and professionals will see changes in their operations.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects businesses involved in the importation and distribution of trademarked and copyrighted goods, including large companies and small businesses. This will likely lead to variations in the impact across different sectors based on their dependency on imported goods.
- Consumers will be indirectly affected by changes in price and availability of imported goods subject to intellectual property (IP) scrutiny. Their wellbeing might be impacted based on their reliance on such products as part of their daily life.
- Those employed in sectors enforcing intellectual property laws, or advocating for such laws, might have improved job security and satisfaction due to enhanced enforcement measures.
- The policy implications are broad-reaching but may not equally impact all demographics due to varying levels of involvement with or dependence on the import sector.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is good for protecting brands that we carry.
- I'm worried about potential delays in receiving stock which might impact our sales.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy creates more demand for our software products, which is great for business.
- It aligns well with our company's focus on improving customs compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Import Agency Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More work might come our way, which is positive.
- There could also be more scrutiny and pressure, which could be stressful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might have to pay more for gadgets I want.
- I support protecting intellectual property though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will reinforce the importance of IP laws, contributing to more work.
- It aligns with our practice's goals to encourage compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Port Authority Official (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased enforcement might mean more stringent checks, impacting workload.
- This could help reduce the influx of counterfeits, enhancing market integrity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that my small business will face delays due to stricter checks.
- It's good for protecting genuine brands but could complicate my supply chain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Dallas, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retiring means less direct impact, but I worry about prices affecting pensions.
- Reflecting back on my working days, such policies are generally favorable for local industries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Professor of Economics (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is interesting for its potential impact on trade balance and IP rights.
- In theory, this should support fair market competition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Logistics Coordinator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might complicate logistics but also ensures we are importing authentic goods.
- Expecting increased work but also potentially more reliability in sourcing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The legislative framework enhances enforcement against IP violations, potentially deterring counterfeit goods trade into the U.S.
- Higher enforcement may initially increase operational and administrative costs for CBP, but could result in savings over time through deterrence and efficiency gains.
- The policy could improve market conditions for businesses adhering to trademark and copyright laws, but may also disrupt the supply chain temporarily, affecting availability.