As we move toward the implementation of the Digital Product Passport (DPP), the focus has largely been on the “North Star” of circularity and data transparency. However, as we bridge the gap between physical goods and digital data, we encounter a significant paradox: a standardized, transparent passport also provides a blueprint for sophisticated fraud.

If the link between the physical product and its digital twin is compromised or easily replicated, brands face several systemic risks:

• Documentation Integrity: Cloned passports can create “data noise,” making legitimate supply chain documentation appear non-conformant during regulatory audits.

• Liability Shifts: How do we protect a brand’s reputation when a non-compliant counterfeit product carries a legitimate-looking digital certificate of origin?

• Financial Fallout: There is a growing concern regarding the “Recycling Tax,” where brands may inadvertently fund the end-of-life processing for fraudulent products that have spoofed the brand’s DPP.

I’m interested in opening a discussion on how organizations are planning to secure the “Physical-Digital Link”:

Are you treating the DPP as a standalone compliance requirement, or are you looking at broader integrity frameworks to ensure the data cannot be decoupled from the specific, individual item? Furthermore, how are your legal teams addressing the potential for “passport identity theft” in the context of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)?

I look forward to hearing your perspectives on whether the current DPP standards are sufficient to protect a brand’s reputation and data, or if we are missing a critical layer of protection.