Beyond Amazon: Counterfeit Risk on Zalando, OTTO, Kaufland and Other European Marketplaces
Beyond Amazon: Counterfeit Risk on Zalando, OTTO, Kaufland and Other European Marketplaces
Brands that build their counterfeit monitoring program around Amazon alone are leaving real exposure unmonitored on other major European marketplaces. Zalando, OTTO, and Kaufland each run some version of a hybrid model that combines their own first-party retail operation with a third-party marketplace layer, and that third-party layer is where unauthorized and counterfeit listings tend to appear, often with less brand-verification infrastructure than Amazon has built over time. Monitoring needs to extend to these platforms individually, since a violation on one does not get flagged or removed automatically because it was caught on another.
Why Amazon-Only Monitoring Leaves Gaps in Europe
Many brands, especially those that built their brand protection program starting in the US, default to treating Amazon as the primary or even sole marketplace worth monitoring closely. In several European markets, that assumption does not hold. Zalando is one of the largest fashion and lifestyle marketplaces in Europe. OTTO is a major German retailer with a substantial third-party marketplace business alongside its own retail catalog, part of the same German e-commerce landscape covered in brand protection for German e-commerce companies selling across Europe. Kaufland operates a similar hybrid model as a large European retailer with marketplace listings from external sellers. None of these platforms is a niche or secondary concern for a brand selling meaningfully across European markets, and each has its own seller onboarding standards, reporting tools, and enforcement processes that differ from Amazon's.
The Hybrid Model Problem
First-party and third-party listings sit side by side.
A shopper on Zalando, OTTO, or Kaufland often cannot easily tell whether they are buying from the platform's own retail operation or from an independent third-party seller listed on the same marketplace page, which means a counterfeit listing from a third-party seller can carry an implied credibility from sitting next to the platform's own verified inventory.
Seller verification standards vary by platform.
Each of these marketplaces has built its own seller onboarding and verification process independently, at a different point in its own platform maturity, which means the strength of seller identity checks and listing review is not consistent from one to the next, or consistent with what a brand may already be used to on Amazon.
Reporting processes are platform-specific.
A brand protection process built entirely around Amazon's Brand Registry and reporting tools does not transfer directly to Zalando, OTTO, or Kaufland, each of which has its own seller policy enforcement team, reporting channel, and expected documentation for a takedown request.
What This Means for Monitoring Coverage
A brand selling across European markets needs visibility into listings on each marketplace where its products, or counterfeit versions of its products, are likely to appear, rather than assuming strong Amazon coverage extends automatically. This means tracking listings, pricing, and seller identity signals separately on Zalando, OTTO, Kaufland, and any other regionally significant marketplace relevant to the brand's specific category and market footprint, since counterfeit activity does not distribute itself evenly and often concentrates on whichever platform currently has the weakest detection or enforcement friction. This split matters even within neighboring markets, as covered in DACH market counterfeit enforcement across Germany, Austria and Switzerland, where each market carries its own enforcement mechanics.
This also means budgeting monitoring resources with the same seriousness across platforms that a brand already applies to Amazon. A team that reviews Amazon listings weekly but checks Zalando or OTTO only occasionally, or only after a customer complaint, is effectively signaling to counterfeit sellers which platform carries the lower risk of getting caught. Consistent attention across every marketplace where a brand has real sales volume closes that gap.
Why This Requires Platform-Specific Enforcement Knowledge
Even once a violation is detected, removing it requires understanding each platform's specific reporting process, required documentation, and escalation path, which differs from platform to platform. A takedown request formatted for Amazon's Brand Registry process will not necessarily map cleanly onto what OTTO or Kaufland's seller policy team expects to see, which slows enforcement if a brand's team is not already familiar with each platform's specific requirements. These platform obligations sit on top of the baseline set by how the EU Digital Services Act changes brand protection for marketplaces and online platforms, which applies across all of them regardless of each platform's own specific process.
Why Continuous, Multi-Platform Monitoring Matters Here
Counterfeit and unauthorized listings on European marketplaces beyond Amazon often go undetected longer simply because fewer brands are actively watching those platforms, which paradoxically makes them a more attractive target for bad actors, not less. Remove.tech's monitoring covers marketplaces, social media, and websites across the European markets a brand sells into, using bot-powered search and image recognition that does not stop at whichever platform happens to be the most familiar, with automated legal notice filing built to match each platform's specific enforcement process. Brands wanting a first look at their own exposure across these marketplaces can start with a free brand audit.
FAQ
Do Zalando, OTTO, and Kaufland verify third-party sellers the same way Amazon does?
No, each platform runs its own independent seller onboarding and verification process, built separately and at different points in each platform's development, so the strength and specifics of seller checks vary from one marketplace to the next.
Should a brand prioritize one of these marketplaces over the others for monitoring?
Prioritization should follow where the brand actually sells and where its category is most represented. A fashion or lifestyle brand has more relevant exposure on Zalando specifically, while a broader consumer goods brand may see more relevant activity on OTTO or Kaufland.
Is counterfeit risk on these platforms typically lower than on Amazon simply because they are smaller?
Not necessarily. Lower monitoring attention from brands, rather than platform size alone, is often the bigger factor in how much counterfeit activity persists on a given marketplace undetected.
Do takedown requests need separate documentation for each of these platforms?
Generally yes. Each platform has its own expected format and required evidence for a takedown request, which is why a process built exclusively around one platform's documentation standard often needs adjustment before it works cleanly on another.
Amazon is not the only marketplace where a European brand's counterfeit exposure lives, and in several cases it is not even the platform with the weakest detection friction. Zalando, OTTO, Kaufland, and other regionally significant marketplaces each need their own monitoring attention and their own platform-specific enforcement approach, since assuming strong coverage on one extends to the others is exactly the gap counterfeit sellers are positioned to exploit.
