Dear I sincerely appreciate the detailed and enthusiastic outline of Amazon’s FBA Inventory Protection policies. However, your optimistic portrayal of these policies starkly contrasts with the frustrating and often absurd reality that many experienced sellers, myself included, continually face.

Firstly, regarding your point on eligibility and documentation, my business has consistently and meticulously provided accurate, thorough, and timely documentation, perfectly aligning with our sourcing costs. Ironically, despite your confident claims about the ease of updating these costs via the "Manage Your Sourcing Cost" page, your system has repeatedly and inexplicably rejected these invoices, even when they exactly match the information requested. This is hardly the seamless process your post cheerfully promises.

Secondly, your guide confidently states reimbursements reflect accurate sourcing costs. Yet, my extensive records, diligently maintained across numerous case IDs clearly document scenarios where Amazon significantly undervalued reimbursements or arbitrarily rejected legitimate claims only to later accept the identical documentation previously dismissed multiple times. It's as though your reimbursement system thrives on creating unnecessary obstacles for dedicated sellers.

Furthermore, your reassuring message emphasizes Amazon’s commitment to rectifying lost inventory by offering replacements or monetary reimbursement. In stark contrast, my experience includes baffling instances where Amazon attempted to substitute missing inventory with completely unrelated ASINs from other sellers and brands, essentially instructing me to fraudulently list items I neither own nor could ethically sell. Such tactics not only border on fraud but directly undermine the trust between sellers and your platform, completely contradicting your purported protections.

Addding insult to injury, your outlined "red flags" amusingly include "questionable documentation" and "recent similar disputes." Ironically, my consistently transparent and accurate documentation has been unfairly labelled questionable without valid reason. Any repetitive disputes we encounter directly result from Amazon's astonishingly inconsistent and contradictory approach to legitimate claims, not any imagined wrongdoing on our part.

Let's consider pack-size discrepancies a favourite excuse of Amazon’s support team. Claims stating single units were received instead of clearly labelled multi-packs defy logic and reality, given we exclusively package and ship our products in strictly defined pack quantities. Despite comprehensive explanations, detailed photographic evidence, and emails escalated directly to Amazon’s managing directors, this illogical and inexplicable error persists. At this point, one must wonder if this issue reflects severe internal mismanagement or deliberate obstruction.

Equally bewildering is the frequent citing of weight discrepancies as grounds to reject claims. For instance, if we dispatch a shipment weighing 30kg via your own partnered carrier, UPS, clearly sufficient for 30 units, and only 20kg arrive, it indicates a loss, plain and simple. Your policy explicitly covers such losses, yet claims have been repeatedly rejected citing these exact weight discrepancies. Rejecting reimbursements precisely because the documented losses occurred is, quite literally, an absurdity worthy of satire.

Given the substantial and well-documented cases across multiple shipments, Amazon’s chronic failure in fairly and accurately implementing its stated reimbursement policies is painfully evident. Seller Support’s relentless incompetence marked by repetitive, generic, and often conflicting responses only exacerbates the frustration, driving sellers toward despair rather than resolution.

Can I personally ask for your assistance, @Spencer_Amazon, in finally achieving a meaningful and fair resolution across numerous outstanding issues and shipments?

If Amazon genuinely intends to support its sellers and "make things right," as you enthusiastically suggest, immediate and significant improvements in claim processing consistency, transparency, and fairness must be urgently prioritized. Until then, your optimistic promises remain disappointingly theoretical, rather than a practical reality.

Regards,

Ross (Removed by moderator)