Compliance is not an alert count
Bridge publishes three takedown-compliance figures: 99 percent on marketplaces, 93 percent on social, and 83 percent on websites and domains. Those numbers are the share of submitted notices that the platform or registrar actioned in the previous 12 months. They are not the number of detections a crawler produced, and they are not a promise that every listing on the internet disappeared.
The method
A notice is counted when Bridge has submitted it. It is counted as compliant when the destination removes or disables the target. Channels are kept separate because they do not behave the same: a marketplace tool is not a Facebook group, and a Facebook group is not a registrar. We do not count unsent detections. We do not count alerts that never became a notice. We do not blend the three channels into one vanity percentage.
What the mix looks like, without naming clients
Marketplace notices remain the largest share of volume. That is where catalogues and repeat sellers still concentrate, and it is where compliance is highest. Social is smaller in count and harder in practice: livestreams, private groups, and accounts that vanish after a report. Websites and domains fail more often, not because the notices are careless, but because hosts and registrars vary, and a clone shop is cheap to stand up again.
The pattern that matters for investigations is not the headline rate. It is the residue: the seller who reconstitutes, the host that ignores, the ads that never used the mark in the display URL. Those leftovers are where desktop research starts.
Why we publish this
Brand protection software is judged on detections. A practice should be judged on whether notices land, and on whether the people behind the listings are still in scope afterwards. If a vendor will not say how compliance is counted, treat the dashboard as a traffic report.
This note will be updated when the next twelve-month window closes. The method will not change without saying so here.