Counterfeit Drugs and the Parallel Bogus Universe

The worldwide growth in mobile phone use has now reached even the poorest consumers. Cellphones are the first electronic product verification method to reach a majority of the world’s people, and the internet will soon follow. Some brands are taking advantage of this trend to help them combat counterfeit products, by offering consumer authentication of their products via text messaging, websites, or visible serial numbers. Some companies hit hard by counterfeits sold on the internet have now even decided to sell their products directly to consumers via the web, with their own additional security.

These systems allow the consumer to be directly involved in the verification of their product, and give the opportunity for the brand owner to send marketing messages whilst verifying their product's authenticity. Unfortunately, many of the consumer-based verification systems which rely on telephone helplines or websites are vulnerable to the “parallel universe” problem.

In many of the parts of the world where counterfeit drugs are a major problem, for example in Africa and South East Asia, the use of technology is still relatively new. If a consumer is told that they can verify their product by calling a helpline or sending an SMS text message with a serial number, they are unlikely to doubt, or to check, the authenticity of the system itself.

Criminals do not stand still and will continually look for ways to get around security systems. To circumvent "phone-in", website or SMS-based systems they can, and do, print counterfeit packaging complete with bogus versions of the serial number, telephone helpline, product website etc. The criminal can then put in place their own "authentication" system (either automatic or simply a poorly paid worker answering manually) which will return a reassuring answer to the customer that the product is genuine. The customer thinks they have validated their product with a foolproof method.  In fact the whole system is a parallel, counterfeit world.

The immediate objection to my argument is that serial numbers or codes on products prevent criminals from conducting their business on a large scale, by denying them access to legitimate distribution channels.  However, to break an anti-counterfeiting system the counterfeiter does not have to integrate his criminal business activities into it. He merely has to disrupt the official system so that consumer confidence is undermined and it ceases to be credible. As the genuine system falls into disuse, the criminal is free to go about his business as before.

For this reason, physical verification (based on visible and invisible security features) and digital authentication (based on unique serial numbers, codes etc) should still always go hand in hand, however efficient and high-tech the tracking capability becomes.