IP House Executive Chairman Steve Francis Testifies Before U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, IP, AI & the Internet
IP House urges Congress to support site blocking, Schedule A litigation, and public-private partnerships for IP enforcement.
Washington, DC – June 30, 2026 — IP House Executive Chairman Steve Francis testified today before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, IP, AI & the Internet at the hearing "A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40," offering the Subcommittee an operational perspective on the state of intellectual property enforcement in the digital age.
Francis, who spent over twenty-five years in federal law enforcement including as Director of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (the "National IPR Center"), brought to the Subcommittee a firsthand account of how IP crime has transformed and escalated as global commerce has moved online.
The Scale of the Threat
In his written testimony, Francis underscored the staggering economic toll of IP theft on American consumers and businesses: "The sale of infringing goods is one of the largest and fastest-growing forms of illicit commerce in the world," he wrote, citing OECD and EUIPO data putting trade in infringing goods at approximately $467 billion annually — roughly 2.3 percent of all global trade. Broader estimates accounting for content theft place the total drag on the global economy between $1.7 trillion and $4.5 trillion each year.
A Consumer Safety Crisis
He warned that IP theft is no longer merely a brand protection problem. "These are not hypothetical harms," he wrote. "An estimated one in four American consumers has purchased an infringing good, often without ever knowing it. A teenager buying a phone charger, a taxi driver replacing brake pads, a parent filling a prescription for their sick infant: each is a potential victim of a crime they cannot see."
IP Crime is Organized Crime
Drawing on IP House’s recent joint investigative report with the Digital Citizens Alliance, Organized. Piracy. Crime., Francis documented the convergence of digital piracy networks with traditional organized crime, and the international recognition that has followed: "INTERPOL, Europol, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime all recognize that major infringing content networks now meet the established criteria for organized crime syndicates: structure, scale, cross-border activity, profit motive, serious associated crimes, duration, and the use of violence and corruption."
He described the human consequences for American consumers: "When an American reaches for an infringing good or an illicit stream, they are too often handing their money and their personal data to the same organizations that move drugs, launder money, and traffic human beings."
A National Security Problem
He argued that the Subcommittee should view online IP theft as a national and economic security matter: "The same compromised supply chains that deliver a counterfeit airbag can deliver a counterfeit component into a critical military defense system. The same payment rails that launder illicit revenue can move money for sanctioned actors. When we allow anonymous foreign networks to operate against American brands with impunity, we are not only tolerating consumer fraud; we are ceding ground in the contest over secure supply chains and economic security.”
Defending Schedule A Litigation
Francis also addressed Schedule A litigation, the civil mechanism allowing rights holders to bring a single action against multiple anonymous foreign sellers and freeze assets before funds disappear beyond U.S. jurisdiction. The tool is facing scrutiny in some courts, and Francis argued for its preservation.
"Schedule A litigation provides rights holders of all shapes and sizes a clear path to justice," he wrote, warning that without it, "meaningful enforcement becomes practical only for the largest companies with the deepest litigation budgets; leaving independent designers, creators, and small and mid-sized businesses to watch their rights be infringed with little realistic recourse."
On calls to limit or eliminate the tool, Francis was direct: "The answer is not to abandon the tool but to apply it with discipline. Refinement, not retreat, is the right course."
What Congress Can Do
He closed with a direct call to action, urging the Subcommittee to pursue three priorities: support durable judicial site blocking authority with safeguards for legitimate intermediaries; recognize and encourage the consistent, disciplined application of Schedule A litigation; and continue investing in the public-private partnership model embodied by the National IPR Center.
"The foreign criminals pushing dangerous IP infringing goods and stolen content into our market should not enjoy a procedural advantage over the U.S. rights holders working to safeguard their brands, their consumers, and the U.S. economy," Francis testified. "IP House stands ready to assist this Subcommittee, federal law enforcement, and our partners with the intelligence and operational expertise to meet this threat."
About IP House
IP House is a global one-stop-shop intellectual property protection and enforcement company delivering end-to-end solutions across online and offline environments. The company combines advanced data intelligence with investigative and field capabilities to identify, analyze, and disrupt IP infringement and fraudulent activity across digital platforms and physical supply chains.
Working with rights holders, industry associations, law enforcement, and legal partners, IP House supports the full enforcement lifecycle, from monitoring and intelligence gathering to investigations, evidence development, and coordinated enforcement actions. Its integrated approach enables clients to address complex, cross-border infringement at scale while protecting brand integrity, content value, and consumer safety.
IP House Media Contact:
Sydney Redden
Sydney.redden@ip-house.com
+1 (913) 488-8874