Could we get an admin's input and help on how to appeal a fraudulent return with an A-Z claim that is closed (not "granted" status, "closed" status specifically)?

No option was given to appeal the A-Z claim. We cannot file a Safe-T claim, we receive an error that we cannot open a Safe-T claim since there is an A-Z claim. I have now attempted to open two cases, ID 17644037201 on 04/24 and 17779638981 on 05/21. My first case WAS NEVER REPLIED TO and is still sitting in transferred status. My second case rep is now telling me its too old to fight and I should give up.

Background: Customer opened a return request 03/22 for 'missing parts' (impossible as the product does not have parts). Order was returned 03/31. The customer sent us an email asking about the return 04/04, we responded 04/04 but the customer did not respond to our questions regarding the return. The item returned was not our item. We do not sell or carry the item returned, we could not have shipped it. The shipping package returned is not a package we use, we could not have shipped using that package. Customer filed an A-Z claim 04/06 and ADMITS the item was NOT missing parts, as their return request stated, in their A-Z claim saying "Is anything missing? No." and changes their reasoning for the A-Z claim to "Different from what I ordered". Claim was obviously opened by an Amazon rep. Claim was then "closed" 04/07 before we could respond. We were not given an option to appeal since it was "closed". Return request status states "Resolution-AutomatedRefund". So, the A-Z claim was closed and the customer was given an automated refund. We were debited for the credit to the fraudster and not able to appeal via Safe-T claim OR the A-Z claim.

This seems to be a conflict in Amazon's Safe-T claims system not allowing for a claim to be filed even though the A-Z claim case was "closed" specifically, it was NOT granted. We would like to get our money back, expose this fraudster, and have someone address this issue with the Safe-T claim. Normal seller support has not proven themselves capable of addressing this issue.

We have been selling our product for years under the E.B. Stone brand. We don't own the brand, but are retailers of the brand. We made the original product listing, which was listed as E.B. Stone. Now it's been changed to KEXMY, which has no connection to E.B. Stone. When asking for Amazon's help, they tell us we can do nothing, as KEXMY is the brand owner. Can someone explain how this happens and what benefit KEXMY is getting from this change? We are still selling the product, but we can't change the listing as it's "owned" by KEXMY. Can anyone here or from Amazon explain how we can resolve this? I have attached the ASIN for the product. B07CZ35PMK

I've sold used books since 2009 and today this is a new glitch: I go to Add Products and type the title of a book I want to sell into the box and get "no results" -- but if I pretend I'm going to BUY the book from Amazon from my personal account, the book pops right up. It's in Amazon's catalog. In fact, I am getting "no results" from every book I check. Have I accidentally changed some setting? Or is something broken?

Order #112-9985954-5985046, this transaction included two items:

Item 1: The customer requested a return and refund, which we promptly processed.

Item 2: The customer requested an exchange, and we immediately dispatched the replacement product.

Later, the customer left a 1-star review claiming they "did not receive a full refund for this order," which has left us deeply perplexed and disheartened. We meticulously followed all protocols:

Maintained clear communication records confirming actions at every stage.

Explicitly stated that the refund applied only to the returned item (not the exchanged product).

Despite our compliance, we are unable to remove this false and defamatory feedback. After submitting Case #17770375751, we received only automated response stating that "feedback cannot be removed."

We are gravely concerned that Amazon’s current policies appear to:

Enable malicious reviews without verifying factual accuracy.

Tolerate fraudulent claims of "incomplete refunds" for properly fulfilled orders.

This precedent risks incentivizing abuse of honest sellers.