Nearly 35% of urban Indians came across counterfeit products in the 12 months preceding the survey, and 89% reported having purchased a fake product at least once in their lifetime, according to the State of Counterfeiting in India 2025 report. Released on March 16, 2026, at TAF Connect 2026 in Mumbai — India's foremost authentication and brand protection industry conclave — the report was jointly produced by the Authentication Solution Providers' Association (ASPA) and CRISIL Intelligence. It represents one of the more comprehensive attempts to map the counterfeiting landscape in India using primary consumer data.

The findings are drawn from a survey of 1,639 respondents across nine cities — Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, and Indore — supplemented by industry consultations and secondary research. The cities selected represent a cross-section of India's major urban centres, spanning different regions, income profiles, and consumption patterns. Respondents estimated that around 29% of products available in local markets may be counterfeit, and 74% said they believe counterfeiting has increased in their region over the past year — a figure that points to growing consumer awareness of the issue alongside continued exposure to it.

Sector-by-sector exposure

The report covers six sectors: apparel, FMCG, automotive parts, consumer durables, pharmaceuticals, and agro-products. The findings show that counterfeiting is not confined to any one category, but is distributed across segments that touch everyday life — from the clothes consumers wear to the medicines they take and the inputs farmers use to grow food.

Among the sectors surveyed, apparel recorded the highest consumer exposure, with 31% of respondents reporting they encountered or purchased counterfeit clothing in the past year. The report attributes this to the high volume of both branded and unbranded fashion goods circulating through online and offline channels, making it difficult for consumers to consistently verify authenticity at the point of purchase.

FMCG followed at 27%, covering products such as packaged food, personal care items, and home care goods. The segment's wide distribution network — spanning modern retail, kiranas, and e-commerce platforms — creates multiple entry points for counterfeit goods, which can be particularly difficult to detect given the similarity in packaging between genuine and fake products.

In the automotive segment, 22% of respondents reported encountering counterfeit spare parts. The report links this to the vehicle replacement parts market, where cost considerations often drive purchasing decisions, and where the consequences of substandard components can have direct implications for road safety. Counterfeit brake pads, filters, and engine components have been a documented concern in several markets globally, and the report suggests India is not an exception.

For consumer durables — a segment that includes appliances and electronics — the figure stood at 18%, with more than half of that exposure reported through online channels. This finding is in line with broader trends in e-commerce, where the volume of third-party sellers and the complexity of supply chains can make it harder to ensure product authenticity.

In pharmaceuticals, counterfeit medicines are estimated to account for approximately 28% of the market. The report flags this as a public health concern, given the direct risks that substandard or falsified medicines pose to patients. Local retail outlets remain the primary point of purchase for pharmaceutical counterfeits, accounting for 63% of such exposure, which points to gaps in supply chain integrity at the distribution and retail level.

Among the farming community, 35% of respondents reported encountering counterfeit agro-inputs, and they estimated that around 30% of such products in the market may be fake. The report connects this to risks for crop yield, farm incomes, and food security more broadly. Counterfeit seeds, fertilisers, and pesticides can result in crop failure, financial losses for farmers, and long-term damage to soil quality — concerns with implications that extend well beyond individual households.

Online platforms as the primary channel

One of the report's more notable findings concerns the role of digital channels in the distribution of counterfeit goods. Online aggregator platforms now account for 53% of counterfeit purchases, making them the single largest channel across all sectors surveyed. This marks a shift from earlier patterns in which physical markets and local traders were the primary sources of fake goods.

Social media advertisements are also emerging as a significant channel, particularly for apparel, where they account for 46% of counterfeit exposure, and for consumer electronics, where the figure stands at 35%. The ease of setting up promotional content on social media platforms, combined with limited pre-listing verification, has made these channels increasingly attractive to those distributing counterfeit goods.

Local retail outlets, however, continue to dominate in sectors where supply chains are more locally rooted. They remain the primary channel for agro-products (75%) and pharmaceuticals (63%), suggesting that the challenge in these sectors is as much about physical distribution networks as it is about digital oversight.

Consumer behaviour and willingness to pay

The report notes a gradual but measurable shift in consumer attitudes toward counterfeit goods. Counterfeit products are perceived to be around 22% cheaper than genuine ones — a meaningful price differential in a market where cost sensitivity remains significant. Yet only 36% of respondents cited price as their primary reason for purchasing counterfeits, suggesting that a majority of purchases may be inadvertent rather than deliberate.

This is reinforced by data on consumer willingness to pay. On average, respondents said they would pay a 9% premium for a product they could verify as genuine. That figure rises to 12% in pharmaceuticals — where health stakes are higher — and to 14% in agro-products, where the consequences of using counterfeit inputs can affect an entire growing season. These numbers suggest that a segment of consumers is not only aware of the problem but is prepared to pay more to avoid it.

At the same time, 50% of respondents said they would file a complaint if they received a counterfeit product — a number that, while not a majority, represents a meaningful shift from earlier periods when consumer complaints about counterfeits were less common. Whether complaint mechanisms are sufficiently accessible and effective to convert this intent into action is a separate question, but the data points to rising intolerance toward fake goods among urban consumers.

The report also flags a notable contradiction: 93% of respondents said more public awareness campaigns are needed, even as two-thirds expressed confidence in their ability to identify a counterfeit product. The gap between self-assessed ability and actual exposure rates — given that 89% have bought a counterfeit at some point — suggests that consumer confidence may exceed actual competence in detecting fakes, and that awareness efforts may need to go beyond information dissemination to include practical tools and verification mechanisms.

Industry response

Speaking at the launch, ASPA President Ankit Gupta said counterfeiting incidents in India have increased over the past three years, with those responsible becoming more organised and better funded. He pointed to the growth of e-commerce and the globalisation of supply chains as factors that have complicated enforcement, noting that counterfeiters have become adept at exploiting the scale and speed of digital commerce to distribute fake goods at volume. He described counterfeiting as a problem that damages consumers, legitimate producers, and government revenues simultaneously.

Anjali Nathwani, Director at CRISIL Intelligence, drew attention to the gap between consumer confidence and consumer outcomes. She noted that the fact that 93% of respondents feel more awareness is needed — even while two-thirds believe they can already spot a fake — suggests that information alone may not be sufficient. She called for coordinated action across government, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumers, describing it as a challenge that no single stakeholder group can address independently.

Regulatory and technological responses

The report situates its findings within a broader discussion of what tools are available to address counterfeiting at scale. It highlights the adoption of technologies such as secure packaging, serialisation, track-and-trace systems, digital authentication codes, and consumer-facing verification platforms as part of a growing global response to the problem. Several jurisdictions have moved toward mandating serialisation in pharmaceuticals and other high-risk sectors, and the report suggests that similar frameworks could be relevant to India's context.

The report also underlines the role of regulatory enforcement — particularly in supply chains for pharmaceuticals and agro-products, where the health and livelihood consequences of counterfeiting are most direct. Greater coordination between enforcement agencies, brand owners, and technology providers is identified as a key enabler of more effective anti-counterfeiting measures.

Counterfeiting is a global phenomenon that affects both advanced and developing economies, though its impact tends to be more acute in markets where regulatory capacity and consumer awareness are still developing. In India, the scale of informal trade, the complexity of distribution networks, and the rapid growth of e-commerce have combined to create conditions in which counterfeit goods can circulate widely and with limited accountability.

ASPA, founded in 1998, is a self-regulated non-profit body that represents authentication and traceability solution providers across physical and digital formats. It works with government authorities, brand owners, and industry bodies to promote the adoption of anti-counterfeiting technologies and to build awareness of their importance. Its collaboration with CRISIL Intelligence — a research and analytics firm — for this report is aimed at providing a data-driven foundation for policy and industry decisions, rather than relying on anecdotal accounts of the problem's scale.

The State of Counterfeiting in India 2025 report is positioned as a resource for policymakers, brand owners, regulators, and industry stakeholders seeking to understand where the risks are concentrated, how consumer behaviour is evolving, and where interventions are most likely to have effect.