by Claims of online piracy and counterfeit products have little to do with furniture developed and produced in cooperation with US importers
WASHINGTON — Once again, the furniture industry finds itself possibly impacted by yet another potential tariff, this time focusing on Vietnam.
This particular measure, announced by the USTR on May 29, involves a Section 301 investigation related to Vietnam’s alleged failure to protect intellectual property rights along with the failure to provide market access to entities relying on IP protection.
The timing of this investigation occurs as the industry is trying to claim millions, if not billions, in refunds for tariffs the Trump administration illegally collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Thus, the administration’s answer to replace illegally collected tariffs under IEEPA is to find more ways to push tariffs, including those already being collected from around the globe, under Section 232.
There are several reasons cited for the latest initiative targeting Vietnam, which has little, if anything, to do with furniture developed and produced by Vietnam manufacturers in cooperation with U.S. importers.
The first is the trade representative’s determination that Vietnam has failed to “provide persistent and effective enforcement to combat online piracy.”
“The United States has repeatedly raised strong concerns about Vietnam’s role in online piracy worldwide,” the government’s filing states. “Vietnam remains a significant source of online piracy and continues to host popular English language copyright infringement sites and services that target a global audience. Some of these sites provide piracy services, including extensive libraries of pirated movies and TV shows.”
It goes on to state that the operators of these sites and services “likely based themselves in Vietnam because Vietnam’s IP enforcement efforts have historically lacked the follow-through and substantial penalties needed to deter infringement.” It also notes that defendants in recent criminal prosecutions received suspended sentences and low financial penalties.
A second reason is Vietnam’s failure to provide sufficient enforcement against widespread counterfeiting. The filing states that such goods, whether made locally or imported, remain widely available and openly sold in physical markets, including major tourist centers.
“Counterfeit goods are widespread and increasingly sold through e-commerce platforms and through the use of live-stream videos. Stakeholders report the dangerous spread of fraudulent listings on e-commerce platforms for counterfeit products with health and safety risks, such as counterfeit milk, food and supplements.”
A third reason cited is the lack of effective border enforcement, including failure to utilize authority for IP seizures and a lack of authority over in-transit goods. “Vietnam’s Department of Customs has demonstrated a lack of consistency in enforcement at the border over the years and some stakeholders report a lack of transparency and communication.”
Other grounds are as follows:
+ A lack of enforcement actions against unlicensed software use. “Vietnam has been recognized by stakeholders as a rapidly growing technology hub in the region. At the same time, Vietnamese authorities reportedly have not conducted significant enforcement against the use of unlicensed software by corporate end users in the past three years. The lack of deterrence has resulted in widespread use of unlicensed software.”
+ The lack of criminal measures against cable and satellite signal theft. While Vietnam’s legal code has defined these as criminal activities, the filing notes that a corresponding provision fails to provide criminal penalties.
Like many other industries likely to be in the crosshairs, the furniture industry is probably left wondering what if anything furniture sourcing, development, production and warehousing have to do with this latest investigation. The same is true with other prior tariff actions including those related to drug trafficking or other matters of national security.
Many might suspect the tariffs have more to do with raising additional revenues to offset the growing national deficit caused by the war in Iran and related military activity.
Despite the effort to raise much needed revenue, the move could have a chilling impact on the cost of products from Vietnam, which was the largest exporter of furniture to the U.S. market in 2025. That year, it shipped $10.6 billion, or nearly 35% of the furniture shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, according to an analysis by Mann Armistead & Epperson.
Given its importance to the U.S. furniture market, the industry should speak out and voice concerns about the negative impact of such tariffs, particularly as the higher costs are largely passed on to consumers. That said, rising prices will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on furniture sales should Vietnamese-made furniture be covered by the tariffs.
The USTR opened its docket for comments on May 29. The deadline for those comments is just before midnight on July 2. We encourage those concerned to participate in the process.
Comments can be submitted directly to the government portal at https://comments.ustr.gov/s.
For further information on how to submit comments, contact the USTR support line at 202-395-5725.
