How courts, marketplaces and lawmakers ultimately balance enforcement with due process protections will likely shape the future of e-commerce litigation for years to come.
Platforms like Amazon, TikTok Shop and TEMU have made it easier than ever for small businesses to reach a global audience. A seller can launch a storefront in days, source products from overseas suppliers and begin advertising to millions of consumers with relatively little upfront investment.
But the same systems that lowered barriers to entry have also increased the risk of intellectual property litigation, as trademark, copyright, and design patent claims against online sellers have increased sharply in recent years.
The Rise of Mass IP Litigation
Much of the increase stems from “Schedule A” litigation, a legal strategy that allows brand owners to sue dozens, or even hundreds, of online sellers in a single lawsuit. Combined with platform enforcement policies that can suspend storefronts and freeze funds before any court has made a finding, the current environment puts serious pressure on sellers who may have done nothing wrong.
Many of the targeted sellers are not large-scale counterfeit operations. They are small and midsize businesses pulled into high-stakes federal litigation with little warning and, in some cases, little understanding of how the claims arose.
Understanding “Schedule A” Cases
In a traditional intellectual property lawsuit, a company files claims against a specific defendant accused of infringement. Schedule A litigation works differently. Under this model, plaintiffs file a single complaint against a large group of online sellers, often identified only by marketplace storefront names listed in an attached schedule. The sellers may have no connection to one another beyond allegedly offering similar products online.
The Northern District of Illinois has become a major venue for these cases, with thousands of cases filed over the past several years against marketplace sellers operating across Amazon, eBay, Walmart Marketplace and other platforms.
In the early days of this litigation trend, courts frequently granted emergency restraining orders and asset freezes before defendants even appeared in court. Many sellers first learned they had been sued when marketplace accounts were suspended or payment processors restricted access to funds.
This strategy effectively created an unfair advantage for plaintiffs, and sellers often faced immediate operational damage, even when the claims later proved questionable or overbroad.
Platforms Often Act Before Courts Do
Federal litigation is only part of the problem.
Marketplace platforms have built increasingly aggressive enforcement systems in response to pressure from brands and consumers. Amazon Brand Registry, eBay’s VeRO program, and similar reporting tools allow rights holders to submit infringement complaints directly to the platform.
In practice, listings are often removed before disputes are fully investigated.
The systems are designed for scale. Complaints can be submitted quickly, reviewed through automated processes and enforced across large numbers of listings at once. For sellers, the response timeline is usually short, and missing a deadline can result in a long-term suspension or permanent account loss.
The effect is that allegations can carry consequences long before liability is established. For businesses that rely heavily on marketplace revenue, even a temporary suspension can disrupt advertising campaigns, inventory management, supplier relationships and customer fulfillment.
Common Mistakes Can Trigger IP Claims
Many online sellers do not realize how easily ordinary business decisions can expose them to intellectual property risks.
Trademark claims may arise from product titles, keyword advertising, logos, or packaging that allegedly create consumer confusion. Copyright disputes often involve supplier-provided product images or marketing descriptions used without proper authorization.
Design patent claims can be even more difficult for sellers to identify in advance. A seller may not know a product design is protected, particularly when products move through layered overseas supply chains before reaching online marketplaces.
The issue is not always intentional infringement. In many cases, sellers inherit legal exposure from manufacturers, wholesalers or third-party marketing materials they assumed were legitimate.
Courts Are Showing More Skepticism
As Schedule A litigation has expanded, some courts have begun to question whether these mass-defendant lawsuits go too far.
Several decisions in the Northern District of Illinois have pushed back against large-scale joinder strategies, requiring plaintiffs to pursue separate actions against sellers with little factual connection to one another. Courts have also shown greater concern about ex parte asset freezes imposed before defendants have a meaningful opportunity to respond.
In short, the law in this area remains unsettled as district courts have reached different conclusions about when mass-defendant IP litigation is appropriate and what procedural protections sellers should receive before funds are restrained or storefronts are disrupted. That uncertainty leaves sellers operating in an enforcement environment that continues to evolve faster than the legal standards governing it.
A System In Need of Balance
Brand owners have legitimate reasons to protect trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property rights online. Counterfeiting remains a serious problem across major marketplaces.
On the other hand, infringement enforcement mechanisms are impacting legitimate sellers before any court determines whether a violation actually occurred. Marketplace enforcement programs and mass-defendant lawsuits place the burden on sellers at the beginning of the dispute, when accounts may already be suspended and funds frozen.
For many small online sellers, losing access to storefronts or operating revenue, even temporarily, can create immediate financial pressure long before the underlying claims are fully tested in court.
How courts, marketplaces and lawmakers ultimately balance enforcement with due process protections will likely shape the future of e-commerce litigation for years to come.
Join the conversation!