Can the OECD’s Guidelines Help End E-Illicit Trade?

This post explains why TRACIT has submitted comments urging the OECD to strengthen its Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade on Online Marketplaces and why weak standards won’t protect businesses or consumers.

​4-minute read

It’s no coincidence that INTERPOL’s Operation Pangea XVII had to shut down 13,000 websites and social media channels to seize a record amount of illegal or falsified medicines – 50 million doses worth USD 65 million. It’s because illicit trade has largely moved online. We need to recognize this and find ways to mitigate it.

David Caunter, INTERPOL Director  of Organized and Emerging Crime, confirms it: “The rapid growth of online platforms has made it easier for these unsafe drugs to reach people, as well as opening new opportunities for criminal networks to exploit…”
And it’s not only pharmaceuticals; nearly every product category is affected. Online platforms have given criminals an unprecedented reach to customers, with operational ease and little legal risk.

Decades of regulatory efforts to combat illicit trade in the physical world have been undermined—if not wiped out—by the rise of e-commerce. The policy framework hasn’t kept pace, and allowing platforms to self-regulate has failed.

The OECD, renowned for its leadership in establishing international policy standards, has recently drafted a set of guidelines that present a significant opportunity for effective regulation. As a business-led organization that understands the ground reality, we have submitted comments on the current draft to push for the creation of high-impact guidelines that can make an operational difference.

We focused on four key measures that will support the shift toward clean, accountable online platforms that consumers can trust: 

1. Clearly defining the objectives and scope of the Guidelines
   The Guidelines must focus specifically on governments and online marketplaces, as they are the only stakeholders that have direct control over online illicit trade. Diluting accountability across too many stakeholders weakens enforcement and burdens smaller rights holders who lack the capacity to police platforms themselves.
   
   
2. Calling for stronger, enforceable language in the Guidelines
   Soft, discretionary phrases like “should consider” or “where possible” create loopholes that criminals exploit and platforms hide behind. The Guidelines need clear, mandatory obligations that set real expectations, not optional suggestions.
   
   
3. Establishing non-negotiable standards for platform accountability
   Platforms should be required to enforce strict seller vetting, proactive verification, and the blocking of illicit listings, along with the deterrent penalties that permanently ban repeat offenders. These proven measures help reduce counterfeit sales and safeguard consumers.
   
   
4. Establishing platform liability
   Voluntary measures are not effective. Embedding legal liability ensures that platforms are held accountable if they fail to enforce anti-counterfeit measures, just like any other business that profits from services posing known risks to the public. Omitting legal liability for platforms would undermine the purpose of the Guidelines.

Let’s remember what is at stake: e-illicit trade generates billions of dollars for criminal networks at the expense of legitimate companies. More fundamentally, there’s a substantial cost to society. Consumers are put at risk by substandard or dangerous products. Child and forced labor are routinely exploited to manufacture illicit goods under inhumane conditions.

For brand owners, the effects are relentless. Criminal sellers face almost no barriers to entry. They can list counterfeit goods without proof of authenticity, even for high-risk products that would need a license in the physical world. Brands spend countless hours removing infringing listings, only to see them reappear under a new account.

Platforms provide criminals with powerful tools for advertising, distribution, and payment. Meanwhile, brand owners are left to battle uphill to protect their reputations and customers. 

The problems related to online illicit trade are too serious to overlook. Through our comments, TRACIT is simply asking that facts be recognized and that action be taken.

Online platforms should not be permitted to profit while claiming that neutrality exempts them from accountability. After all, they already track and target millions of users every day. There’s no reason they can’t apply the same technology to identify and block illegal sellers, a far smaller group.
Accountability requires effort and comes with financial costs for platforms. However, we cannot ignore that e-commerce platforms are key enablers of crimes with devastating consequences. Remember the fundamental legal principle of the duty of care: anyone who creates or controls a risk of harm has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent that harm.

The OECD Guidelines offer a vital opportunity to create real change—yet, as they stand, they risk being watered down into vague, non-committal statements that won't deter criminals or prompt platforms to improve. TRACIT will continue to advocate for safe and legitimate e-commerce. It’s time to replace excuses with accountability.

TRACIT Team