Results for "외국인선불유심삽니다 탤그상담 Tsbusim 신불자급전내구제문의 탬스뷰 선불유심내구제 무사고업체 만19세비상금대출 영등포구백수소액비상금대출"
(43 results)
Sort by
Filters
Results for "외국인선불유심삽니다 탤그상담 Tsbusim 신불자급전내구제문의 탬스뷰 선불유심내구제 무사고업체 만19세비상금대출 영등포구백수소액비상금대출"
(43 results)DISTURBING: Coordinated Negative Product Review Attack – Evidence of Review Manipulation
Hi Amazon Moderators,
I’m hoping a moderator can review and urgently escalate Case ID: 13151886352.
I believe there is substantial evidence that my ASIN has been targeted by a coordinated negative review attack.
Seller Support has responded by telling me to submit removal requests through Feedback Manager. This is incorrect, these are product reviews, not seller feedback, so Feedback Manager is not the appropriate reporting mechanism. More importantly, the evidence submitted in the case warrants a proper investigation into potential review manipulation.
The pattern I have identified
The suspicious orders were all placed on: 18/06/2026
The associated negative product reviews were then posted the very next day: 19/06/2026
In addition:
- The delivery postcodes associated with these orders are all located within approximately a 300-metre radius of each other.
- Multiple orders therefore appear to have been placed at essentially the same time, within an extremely small geographical area, followed by negative reviews the following day.
- I subsequently found posts in a local Facebook group from recipients at these addresses.
- The residents stated that they had received packages at their addresses, but the names on the packages were not people who lived at those addresses.
- The recipients themselves expressed concern on Facebook about receiving packages addressed to unknown individuals at their homes.
- Screenshots of these Facebook posts and the supporting evidence have been attached privately to Case ID 13151886352.
I am deliberately not publishing customer names, addresses or order numbers on the public forum. Amazon can see all of this information within the case.
The case evidence includes:
Review Name | Review Date | Review Link | Order Number | Order Date | Customer Order Name | Customer Address
It also contains the supporting screenshots and the Facebook group evidence.
The combination of:
same order date (18/06) → same review date (19/06) → addresses clustered within ~300 metres → names apparently not belonging to residents → actual residents independently reporting the unexpected packages on Facebook
appears highly unusual and, in my view, provides strong grounds for Amazon to investigate whether these orders and reviews are connected.
I want to stress that I am not asking Amazon to remove legitimate negative reviews simply because they are negative. I am asking Amazon to investigate what appears to be coordinated review manipulation and take appropriate action if the activity violates Amazon's policies.
Could one of the Amazon forum moderators please review Case ID 13151886352 and escalate the evidence to the appropriate Reviews / Community / Abuse investigation team, rather than directing me to Feedback Manager?
I am happy to provide any further evidence privately if required.
Thank you.
Hello Amazon Community Managers,
I am requesting help with a persistent technical issue affecting our US INFORM Consumers Act Identity Verification.
The issue has been documented since July 14, 2026. Our US seller account remains active with no restrictions on sales, disbursements, or shipment creation, but the account is currently At Risk, with a deadline of September 9, 2026.
Each verification attempt follows the same pattern:
1. Seller Central accepts the identity information and documents.
2. The page changes to “We are validating your information.”
3. Later, the workflow returns to the original submission page.
4. No field is highlighted as incorrect, no document is identified as invalid, and no specific rejection reason is provided.
On some attempts, the system also displayed error RES minus 1.
On August 30, an Account Health Support specialist reproduced the issue during a live call. The specialist verified our information, cleared the browser cache and cookies, used Safari, and submitted the form with us. The page showed “validating” and then reset again.
AHS instructed us not to make any further submissions while the internal technical investigation is pending. We have followed that instruction.
Relevant cases:
- 21500379181 — screenshots, URLs, timestamps, RES minus 1, successful submission, and subsequent reset.
- 21650900551 — AHS documented that verification was retriggered without identifying any incorrect information or invalid document.
- 21804164811 — AHS reproduced the problem during the August 30 call and escalated it for technical investigation.
There may also be a backend data-synchronization issue. The INFORM panel still displays our former St. Petersburg, Florida business address, while Seller Account Information contains our current Hallandale Beach, Florida address.
Our Canadian Identity Verification is also pending, with a deadline of October 19, 2026. In an August 10 AHS follow-up, we were advised that the Canadian identity verification could not be completed until the unresolved US verification was resolved.
Could an Amazon Community Manager please review the cases above and the existing internal technical review, and escalate this to the team responsible for the INFORM Identity Verification workflow?
We specifically need help with:
- investigating why accepted submissions are not retained;
- checking for stale backend account data;
- resetting or resynchronizing the verification workflow;
- advising what we should do before September 9 while following AHS instructions not to resubmit.
Thank you.
@Seller_9Kb3jdNMszN2C, could you please review the case IDs above and, if appropriate, help route this recurring INFORM Identity Verification reset to the relevant technical team?
Organic appeal pending 19 days and FBA shipments blocked – Case ID 13130026892
Hello Amazon moderators,
I need urgent assistance with an organic certificate violation for ASIN B0DJM84N9K.
The product is not organic and has no organic claim on its physical label. The word “organic” was included unintentionally in one bullet point and was removed immediately.
We submitted a dispute with label evidence on 3 August 2026 under Case ID 13130026892. After 19 days, the case still shows “Work in progress,” and we cannot create new FBA shipments.
We also discovered that Amazon automatically displays the following under Safety and Product Resources:
“The organic inspection body code number: LU-BIO-04.”
We did not submit this code, and it does not appear on our label. This suggests that the ASIN may still be incorrectly classified as organic in Amazon’s internal catalogue.
Account Health instructed us to contact the Listing Team, but the new case was routed to the Climate Pledge Friendly team in error.
Could an Amazon moderator please escalate Case ID 13130026892 to the Product Compliance and Catalogue teams to:
Remove any incorrect organic attribute and the LU-BIO-04 statement.
Complete the pending appeal.
Remove the FBA inbound shipment restriction.
Our inventory is nearly depleted, and we cannot replenish it while this review remains pending.
@Seller_8hQgfj6OVZYse @Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV Please can you help?
Thank you.
Royal Mail showing “Delivered to Safeplace” – what protection do sellers actually have?
I'd really appreciate some advice from other Amazon sellers, and hopefully Amazon staff may also see this.
I have a situation with a customer where Royal Mail tracking shows the order as delivered to the customer's Safeplace at 11:32 on 24 August 2026 with photo
The customer had been away when the delivery was made and contacted me at 19:36 on 25 August**, the day after delivery, saying they had returned home and could not locate the parcel. They initially asked me either to resend the order or provide a refund.
I asked them to confirm the delivery address, which they have now done.
The customer has since told me that they have never designated a Safeplace at the property. They have checked the areas where they believe the parcel could have been left and have also spoken to their regular postman. They say their regular postman wasn't responsible for this delivery and that the person who was responsible apparently could not clarify exactly where the parcel had been left. This is after I mentioned head office would speak to their postie to try to locate it
The customer believes it may have been placed in one of their bins while they were away, although they have said this is only an assumption.
I have already contacted Royal Mail and asked them to investigate the delivery, including checking the delivery scan, identifying the postal worker responsible, establishing what was recorded as the safe place, and clarifying exactly where the parcel was left. They take a few days to respond but usually do
The customer is going away again shortly and has understandably said they need the items, so they are asking me to refund or resend rather than wait for the Royal Mail investigation. They have also told me that, regardless of the outcome, they will not be leaving a positive review.
I completely understand that the customer is disappointed. However, I'm a one-person small business, and this is my only income. A refund or replacement isn't simply absorbed by a large company — it comes directly out of my business income. I therefore don't feel it is unreasonable to investigate a tracked delivery showing as delivered before immediately refunding or sending another order.
I'm not looking to accuse the customer of anything, and I'm not asking Amazon to automatically side with me. I'm genuinely trying to understand what sellers are expected to do in this situation.
My questions are:
1. If Royal Mail tracking says “Delivered to Safeplace”, but the customer says they have never designated a Safeplace, what evidence does Amazon expect a seller to provide?
2. If Royal Mail cannot establish exactly where the parcel was left, how is a seller protected from automatically having to absorb the cost?
3. Does Amazon take into consideration that the seller has actively raised an investigation with Royal Mail rather than simply refusing to help the customer?
4. If an A-to-Z claim is opened while the Royal Mail investigation is still ongoing, is there anything specific sellers should provide to demonstrate that they are actively trying to resolve the situation?
I'd really appreciate experiences from other sellers who have dealt with Royal Mail Safeplace deliveries, missing-after-delivery claims and A-to-Z claims.
I know there are genuine customers and genuine delivery problems; that's not in question. My concern is simply that as a very small seller, repeated losses from refunds/replacements can have a significant impact on my ability to continue trading.
Amazon may be a huge marketplace, but many of the sellers behind those listings are just ordinary people running very small businesses. There isn't a faceless company absorbing every loss.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can share their experience or advice, and for reading my long post
Amazon Refunded a 4-Month-Used, Worn Product at the Seller's Expense — Without Consent, Without Justification, Against Its Own 30-Day Policy and Against UK Consumer Law
Fellow sellers, moderators, and Amazon staff,
I need to raise this publicly, because what happened on Order 202-3343125-7425954 (Case ID: 13210676352 and 13211729362, ASIN: B0BTFCW4TB, Skechers Men's Max Fairway 3 Golf Shoe, GBP 118.90) is not a "customer service decision."
It is a straightforward transfer of money from the seller's account to a buyer, on a product used for 4–5 months, with no policy basis, no legal basis, and — critically — no consultation with the merchant of record. And I want the community and the moderators to look at this with me, because if this stands, it stands for every one of us.
The facts, briefly:
The order was placed on 13 April 2026 and delivered on 18 April 2026. The buyer contacted us on 3 August 2026 — nearly four months after delivery, and well outside Amazon's own 30-day return window — claiming the shoes were "faulty." Over the course of the conversation, the buyer confirmed the shoes had been worn approximately 15 times over 4–5 months. The photographs submitted showed damage to the inner heel lining, consistent with mechanical friction and ordinary wear from use — not any manufacturing defect.
We handled this properly. We advised the buyer to contact Skechers under the manufacturer warranty (the correct route for a product months past the return window). We assessed the images as retailer. We issued a documented, evidence-based final position confirming wear and tear. Every single message we sent was polite, factual, and grounded in retail assessment.
Amazon then refunded the buyer in full, at our expense, without contacting us, without asking us, and without providing a single line of justification. We found out because the money was gone.
And to be clear — this is not an isolated incident. We have seen a growing pattern of refunds being authorised by Amazon without our consent, on orders where the seller has followed process correctly. In several cases we were not even notified — the loss was only discovered days later during disbursement reconciliation. That is why this specific case is worth raising publicly: it is not one bad decision by one agent, it is consistent with a wider practice — and every reseller on this marketplace should be concerned about it.
Let me be blunt: this is shameless, negligent, and unprofessional decision-making. On what authority did an agent, sitting behind a screen, override the seller's documented and correct retail assessment on a 4-month-old, actively-worn product? Under what clause of what policy? Signed off by whom? These are not rhetorical questions — Amazon owes an answer.
Where this decision fails against Amazon's own rules:
Under the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement (BSA), the seller is the counterparty to the sales contract and the party responsible for consumer contract obligations (see BSA, "Your Sales and Compliance"). Amazon's role is to facilitate the transaction — not to unilaterally overwrite the seller's evidence-based decision, especially with no notice.
Under Amazon's Return Policy for the UK marketplace, buyers have 30 days from delivery to request a return. This order was 108+ days out of window at the point of first buyer contact. There is no policy line — none — that authorises a full refund on a used product 4 months past the return window without a manufacturing defect being established.
Under the A-to-Z Guarantee Policy, Amazon requires the buyer to first contact the seller, allow 48 hours to respond, and only escalate where the seller has failed to resolve a legitimate issue. In our case: buyer contacted us, we responded within hours, we handled every message, we conducted a documented retailer assessment, and we issued a final position. There was no failure of process on the seller's side. There is no valid A-to-Z ground here — and indeed, no A-to-Z claim was ever filed, which makes this refund even more indefensible.
Where this decision fails against UK consumer law:
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015):
Section 9 requires goods to be of satisfactory quality — but expressly excludes matters made apparent by inspection and, critically, fair wear and tear. Worn heel lining after 4–5 months of active use is textbook fair wear and tear, not a Section 9 breach.
Section 19(14) and Section 20 cover the buyer's short-term right to reject — 30 days from delivery. That right expired in May 2026. Well before August.
Section 23 governs the right to repair or replacement for latent defects — and requires the buyer to establish that the defect was present at the time of delivery. The buyer's own admission — 15 uses across 4–5 months — combined with the wear pattern in their photographs, positively demonstrates the opposite.
Under Section 19(14) / Section 19(15), after six months from delivery the burden of proof shifts back to the consumer — and even within six months, the consumer must still show a defect (not wear from use). The retailer's evidence-based rebuttal in our case fully discharges any burden that existed.
In short: under Amazon's own policy and under UK statute, the seller was in the right. The refund had no legitimate ground on either side.
Now to the reseller-versus-brand question, because this is what really needs to be said publicly:
Skechers is a global manufacturer with a warranty programme and a returns department. When a product is 4 months into active use and the buyer alleges a fault, the correct pathway — under UK consumer law and under Amazon's own guidance to buyers — is the manufacturer's warranty. Instead, Amazon reached into the reseller's pocket. On what basis does Amazon believe that the shallow-pocket reseller, who has already discharged its retailer duties in full, should fund a used-product refund that even the manufacturer would decline? This is not customer service. This is expropriation dressed up as goodwill — with someone else's money.
Compounding damage — the message we received afterwards:
After the refund was processed, the buyer wrote back to us through the order messaging channel with the following (paraphrased for GDPR): "Very happy with Amazon. Will not use e-saleCambridge ever again. They were in denial and provided no assistance from day one. Amazon had to eventually sort it out."
This message is not public — but the mindset it reveals is exactly the reputational risk Amazon has just handed us. A buyer who was factually and correctly told "no" by the retailer, in line with the return window and consumer law, has now been trained by Amazon to believe the seller was "in denial" and that Amazon is the party who "sorted it out." That buyer is one click away from leaving a negative seller feedback, a negative product review, or repeating this narrative to other buyers. Amazon has taken an entirely defensible retail decision, overturned it at the seller's expense, and simultaneously positioned the seller as the villain in the buyer's version of events. This is reputational harm engineered by Amazon's own decision — and it lands squarely on us.
What I am asking Amazon:
On what specific policy clause was this GBP 118.90 refund authorised, given the order was 108+ days past the 30-day return window and no A-to-Z claim was filed?
Why was the seller — the merchant of record and party to the contract under the BSA — not consulted or notified before the refund was issued?
What internal review will Amazon commit to, to prevent used-product refunds from being extracted from resellers on manufacturer-warranty matters that fall outside its own policies?
Given that the seller followed the correct process throughout, will Amazon take any measure to protect the seller from the reputational fallout its own reversal has now caused — including proactive monitoring of any negative feedback linked to this order?
I have escalated this in writing to the Managing Director's office and opened a formal dispute. I am posting here because this is not one seller's issue — it is a policy-integrity issue that touches every reseller on this marketplace.
I would welcome the moderators' input, and I invite fellow sellers who have experienced similar unauthorised, out-of-window, wear-and-tear refunds to share their cases in this thread. If this practice is systemic — and I suspect it is — it needs to be raised at a level where it will actually be answered.
Kind regards.
Mods FYI @Seller_Rv3kmJHEUMGJH @Seller_DNQGSsdC7DccM @Seller_vW3l7M6oLYiHv @Seller_VygaQRBv4Ssmh @Seller_QTT5oP45IFvQZ @Seller_t9kvdr2yixQej @Seller_lmwzklfLOK2Ob @Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV @Seller_j9Bd91CW3ZVpr
We are posting this publicly because we have gone back and forth with Account Health Support several times, yet the responses continue to repeat the same conclusion without addressing the actual issue we have raised.
What happened?
Order 203-9098541-9089910 was correctly dispatched from Linnworks on 5th August using Evri. We have an audit trail confirming the dispatch.
More importantly, the Evri tracking clearly shows:
19:57 – Wed Aug 05 – “Your parcel is being sorted at the sender's local depot.”
This confirms that Evri had received and was processing the parcel on 5th August, before Amazon's ship-by deadline of 23:59 BST.
However, Amazon Seller Central recorded the shipment confirmation at:
04:51 BST – 6th August
Amazon is therefore applying a Late Shipment metric to the order.
Where we believe the problem is
We are not disputing the Seller Central timestamp.
The question is:
Why did Amazon Seller Central fail to recognise/process the available Evri tracking information on 5th August when the carrier tracking already showed that the parcel had been received and was being processed?
Seller Support has repeatedly redirected us to Linnworks, claiming that the shipment data must have reached Amazon on 6th August.
However, this conclusion has not been supported by any evidence.
Linnworks correctly dispatched the order on 5th August, and we have an audit trail proving this. Amazon should therefore investigate the Amazon Seller Central/SSA tracking synchronisation and processing, rather than simply assuming Linnworks was responsible.
The carrier tracking data was already available on 5th August. The issue is why Amazon did not recognise or process that information before the ship-by deadline.
Why are we asking for escalation?
Every response from Seller Support is effectively repeating:
“The Seller Central confirmation timestamp was 6th August, therefore the shipment is late.”
We already understand what the timestamp says.
That is not the issue we are asking Amazon to investigate.
We are asking Amazon to investigate why the shipment confirmation was recorded on 6th August despite the order being correctly dispatched on 5th August and Evri already showing physical processing activity at 19:57 on 5th August.
If Amazon believes Linnworks transmitted the confirmation only on 6th August, then please provide the relevant evidence showing when Linnworks transmitted the data and when Amazon received it.
Until that is established, it is not reasonable to simply assign responsibility to Linnworks.
Request to @Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV @Seller_ZyGdB49sb7An4 @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_j9Bd91CW3ZVpr @Seller_YeWcEeTwlVO93 @Seller_l3eCP9f1PtJXC @Seller_lmwzklfLOK2Ob @Seller_DNQGSsdC7DccM @Seller_z3k8APxGfbQEK
We are asking an Amazon Moderator or the appropriate internal technical team to review Case #13222214322 and investigate the actual root cause.
Specifically, please investigate:
The Linnworks dispatch audit trail for 5th August.
The Evri tracking activity recorded at 19:57 on 5th August.
Why Seller Central did not recognise/process the relevant shipment information before the 23:59 ship-by deadline.
The actual transmission and receipt timestamps between Linnworks, Amazon and the relevant shipping/tracking systems.
Whether there was an Amazon Seller Central/SSA synchronisation or processing issue.
We are not asking Amazon to ignore its LSR policy.
We are asking Amazon to investigate the reason the shipment was not recognised as dispatched on time before penalising the seller for it.
At this stage, continuing to repeat the Seller Central confirmation timestamp without investigating what caused the delay is not resolving the issue.
Case #13222214322 - please escalate for proper internal investigation rather than providing another repeated Account Health response
🛣️ MFN Roadmap: The Final Stop — Ask the MFN Team
Hello Sellers,
You've reached the final stop on the MFN Roadmap. All month long, we've been breaking down the biggest pain points for Merchant Fulfilled sellers — from shipping metrics to carrier delays to label costs. Now it's your turn to ask the questions that matter most to your business.
On 26 August, we're hosting a full-day Ask Amazon event dedicated to answering your MFN shipping and fulfilment questions — directly from the Amazon MFN team.
Event Details
📅 When: Wednesday, 26 August 2026 | 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM BST 📍 Where: Right here in this thread!
What Topics Are Covered?
You've followed the roadmap — now bring your questions on any of these topics:
- Late Dispatch Rate & Valid Tracking Rate: What triggers penalties, how thresholds work, and how to protect your account health.
- Shipping Costs & Label Overcharges: Understanding label charges, identifying billing discrepancies, and what Buy Shipping does (and doesn't) cover.
- OTDR & Carrier Delays: What happens when a carrier delay is beyond your control, how penalties are assessed, and what options you have.
- Order Management, Promise Calculation & Shipping Settings: How delivery promises are calculated, configuring your shipping settings for accuracy, and managing orders effectively.
- EasyShip: How EasyShip works, whether it's right for your business, and how to get the most out of it.
How to Participate
This thread will open for questions on 19 August — one week before the event. You'll be able to:
- Submit your questions in advance
- Engage with other MFN sellers navigating the same challenges
- Starting 26 August, get your questions answered directly on this thread by the Amazon MFN team
Prepare for Success
Missed a post? Catch up on the full MFN Roadmap series here (links added every Tuesday):
- Week 1: [LDR & VTR — What Triggers Penalties?]
- Week 2: [Are You Overpaying for Shipping Labels?]
- Week 3: [Shipping Settings and Carrier Complications]
- Week 3: [EasyShip — Is It Right for Your Business?]
⚡ Pro Tip: The more specific your question, the better our team can help. Include details like your shipping method, carrier, current challenge, and what you've already tried.
Want to be notified when this thread opens? Follow this thread for all the latest updates.
________________________________________________
Note: We cannot provide legal advice or otherwise interpret regulatory requirements on situations that are specific to individual sellers.
On August 19, the brand registration case was accidentally closed, causing the brand registration to remain in a pending review status for an extended period.
Also, I can’t see my brand that’s currently under review in the “Manage My Brand” section. I think this forum is a powerful tool, and there’s a professional brand registration team here—could you help me out? I’d be extremely grateful. @Topher_Amazon @Susi_Amazon @Susie_Amazon @Josh_Amazon @Roberto_Amazon @TaylorR_Amazon @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP CASE ID 21675449681
I want amazon team head to read this issue this is really frustrating!! Please Help
Amazon Deactivated My Account Over an ASIN I Already Stopped Selling — Looking for Advice
Title: My products were genuine and I have the supplier invoice/receipt, but Amazon rejected it — after repeated rejections I acknowledged the violation and stopped selling. Now Amazon is using the same ASIN against my account again.
Hi everyone,
I’m posting this publicly because I’m hoping someone with experience in Amazon Seller Performance, IP complaints, or Supply Chain Verification can help me understand my situation.
I want to make one thing very clear from the beginning:
The products I purchased were genuine. I have the supplier invoice/receipt as proof of purchase. I never knowingly purchased or sold counterfeit products.
What happened
In November 2025, I purchased 70 genuine Learning Resources products from an online supplier.
Before placing the order, I specifically asked the supplier whether their invoice/receipt was genuine and whether it would be acceptable for Amazon verification. The supplier assured me that the documentation was genuine and would pass Amazon’s verification process.
I trusted the supplier and purchased the products.
The details were:
ASIN: B0BT87WKYK
Quantity: 70 units
FBA Shipment ID: FBA15L50SWYRU000001
Shipment: One parcel
Weight: Approximately 19 kg
Carrier: DPD
I sent the products to Amazon FBA UK and sold all 70 units.
The ASIN was ungated at the time, and Amazon allowed me to list and sell it without requesting invoices beforehand.
My team also inspected the products, and the products were genuine.
The invoice issue
After I had sold the inventory, I received an IP complaint and Amazon requested documentation.
I submitted my supplier invoice/receipt, which shows the purchase of the products.
However, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, Amazon repeatedly rejected the invoice.
I submitted it again and again, but Amazon continued not to accept it.
This was extremely frustrating because I had purchased genuine products, had proof of purchase from my supplier, and had already sold the entire inventory.
Eventually, while trying to resolve the IP complaint, I found an acknowledgment option in Seller Central.
The option required me to acknowledge that I did not have the required documentation to reactivate the listing and confirm that I would not relist or sell the ASIN again.
At that point, after repeatedly trying to provide my invoice and being unable to get Amazon to accept it, I acknowledged the violation and agreed not to sell the ASIN again.
I have screenshots showing the acknowledgment.
The IP violation was then removed from my Account Health page.
I immediately complied with the requirement:
I stopped selling the ASIN.
I deleted the listing.
I never purchased it again.
I never relisted it.
I permanently stopped sourcing this product.
Why I am confused now
Approximately five months later, Amazon raised another issue involving the same ASIN and the same 70 units as part of a Supply Chain Verification review.
This ultimately became part of my account deactivation.
What I don’t understand is:
If I had genuine products, had a supplier invoice/receipt, repeatedly tried to provide it, and then—after Amazon continued rejecting it—I acknowledged the violation and permanently stopped selling the ASIN, why is the same historical ASIN now being used against my entire seller account months later?
I completely understand Amazon’s responsibility to verify products and suppliers.
I also accept that, in hindsight, I should have performed more extensive due diligence on the supplier before purchasing.
But there was no intention to sell counterfeit products or deceive Amazon or customers.
I have changed my business model
This experience also taught me an important lesson.
I have completely moved my business toward my own brand and my own manufactured products.
My brand is Farmer’s Craft (UK Trademark No. UK00004031069).
I am no longer sourcing third-party branded products like this.
I currently have my own-brand inventory in Amazon UK, and approximately £40,000 of my own-brand manufactured inventory is on the way to Amazon UK.
So it is extremely difficult to see my entire Amazon business affected by a historical purchase of 70 units that I already stopped selling months ago.
I am not asking Amazon to ignore its policies
I am simply asking for a fair review of the circumstances.
I have been selling on Amazon for around three years.
I made a sourcing mistake by relying too heavily on the supplier’s assurances regarding the documentation, but I never intentionally tried to sell counterfeit products or mislead Amazon.
When Amazon provided an acknowledgment route, I followed it.
I stopped selling the product.
I deleted the listing.
I never sourced it again.
I moved my business toward my own brand.
I have submitted numerous appeals, but I have still not been able to resolve the situation.
I would really appreciate advice
Has anyone here experienced something similar?
Especially:
Amazon rejecting a genuine supplier invoice/receipt even though the products were genuine?
Having an IP violation removed after acknowledging it and agreeing not to relist?
Amazon later using the same historical ASIN for a Supply Chain Verification or account deactivation?
Successfully appealing an account deactivation under similar circumstances?
I am not trying to avoid responsibility. I accept the mistake I made in trusting the supplier’s assurances.
I just want Amazon to consider the full context: the products were genuine, I have proof of purchase, I repeatedly tried to provide the invoice, Amazon did not accept it, I eventually acknowledged the violation when that option was provided, and I permanently stopped selling the ASIN.
If anyone has practical advice about what Amazon is actually looking for in this type of appeal, I would genuinely appreciate it.
Thank you for reading.
Shipping to the US
I see the US as being a great market for me but the problem I have is that my products are low value, typically £19 - £55. This means that the shipping cost is always a large percentage of the final cost so I think that this will put customers off.
But due to the large scale of the US are they used to paying a lot for carriage even when ordering internally?
Half my stuff could go on a postal service as they are postal tubes but the other half are medium sized parcels. Is there anyone here who ships to the US daily and has a decent rate? May I ask what you pay for below 2kg?
