614 cases resolved in one month. €147,795 protected.

The situation

Pulsetto did what most growing brands do first: they handled infringements themselves.

It is a reasonable starting point. Someone on the team notices a problem listing, files a report, and the listing comes down. It feels manageable, and it avoids paying for a solution to a problem that does not yet look big.

Then the volume grows, the channels multiply, and the honest description of the process becomes the one Pulsetto's team gave: slow, confusing, and far more demanding of internal time and resources than anyone expected.

Why in-house enforcement quietly gets expensive

The cost of running enforcement internally rarely shows up as a line item. It shows up in three places instead.

Time, spread across people who were hired to do something else. Enforcement lands on whoever noticed the problem — often marketing, operations, or a founder. None of them have the time, and none of them planned for it.

Process knowledge that never accumulates. Every platform has its own reporting flow, its own evidence requirements, its own tolerance for what counts as a valid claim. Filing occasionally means relearning it every time, and getting rejected for reasons that are not obvious.

Cases that quietly do not get filed. This is the real cost. Not the notices that were sent, but the ones nobody had capacity to send. Those listings stay live, and nothing in the process makes their absence visible.

If any of that sounds familiar, the signs your enforcement setup has been outgrown covers the diagnostic in more detail.

What changed

Pulsetto moved enforcement off the internal team and onto a system built for it. The numbers from that period:

21,000+ cases analyzed. The volume that had previously been reviewed only as far as anyone had time for.

614 cases resolved in a single month. Not flagged, not queued — resolved.

€147,795 in estimated sales value protected. The commercial figure attached to what would otherwise have leaked away.

The structural change matters as much as the numbers: monitoring now covers every platform that matters to the brand, continuously, rather than depending on someone happening to notice.

In their words

It was a night-and-day difference. We tried to handle infringements ourselves — the process was slow, confusing, and required far more time and internal resources than we expected. Now, EnforceShield monitors all the platforms that matter to us and handles the enforcement process, so we don't have to think about it. We can simply focus on running the business.

— Marijus Šaras, Head of Administration, Pulsetto

What this proves

The in-house question is usually framed as a cost comparison. That framing hides the real trade.

Handling enforcement internally does not remove the cost — it moves it onto people whose time is already spoken for, and it caps coverage at whatever those people can get to. The brands that resolve this well are not the ones who tried harder internally. They are the ones who recognised that enforcement had become a standing function rather than an occasional task.

For a walkthrough of the options and where each one fits, see the three architectures, and when each one fits. For how the pipeline itself works, see how the enforcement pipeline is built.