I am looking for assistance from an Amazon moderator with an unresolved Seller Support case.

Amazon recently confirmed that an internal Amazon error caused 29 of my ASINs to become unsearchable and unavailable despite having active offers and inventory.

Amazon has now corrected that error and the ASINs are searchable and available again.

However, at the same time as the internal error occurred, all historical customer reviews disappeared from all 29 ASINs.

I have spent approximately 2½ hours dealing with Seller Support today. They have confirmed that:

* there is no active review suppression;

* the historical review data is missing; and

* they have no mechanism to restore the reviews, even though the original problem was caused by an Amazon internal error.

Seller Support has also directed me to Community Guidelines, but this is not an individual review-removal issue. I am not asking for information about reviewers or the reason for removal of individual reviews. I am asking for investigation of the catalogue/review associations that were lost as a result of an Amazon-confirmed technical error.

I requested escalation to a supervisor, but that request was not addressed and the chat was subsequently terminated.

Case ID: 13247018132

Could an Amazon moderator please review this case and advise how this can be escalated to the appropriate technical/catalogue team?

Thank you.

@Seller_WD80mtpYHjvBN

@Seller_DNQGSsdC7DccM

@Seller_z3k8APxGfbQEK

@Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP

@Seller_mIRnuhdx7l5sN

@Seller_9Kb3jdNMszN2C

Hi Christine,

Thank you for responding. I apologize for the delayed reply — I never received a notification that you had responded to my post.

There has been virtually no movement on these removals for the last three weeks. My main removal orders were created on June 29, and the affected listings have been closed since mid-May.

I have contacted Seller Support repeatedly, and I keep being told that a specialized team is working on it.

This is causing serious financial damage to my business.

The main Seller Support case is 12900248472.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could escalate this internally and help get these removals completed.

Thank you, Christine.

Hi Ana,

I have a very similar issue involving untraceable star-only ratings and tried to follow the RAV non-IP route you recommended above. However, I cannot find any RAV category for customer review/rating abuse.

The “Other” abuse option requires an Order ID as a mandatory field, but with a star-only rating Amazon provides sellers with no Order ID, reviewer identity, marketplace, date or individual review, and there is no “Report” option on the rating itself.

We previously reported the same issue for under Case ID 12913228902 and Complaint ID 12917199822, which Amazon transferred to an internal investigation team on 29 June 2026, but we have received no outcome since then. The same issue has now appeared on another ASIN.

Could you please clarify which exact RAV non-IP category should be used for an untraceable star-only rating when no Order ID or Report button exists?

Thank you.

Hi Amazon MFN Team,

Thank you for running this event.

We have been selling on Amazon UK for more than 20 years and are currently dealing with a Seller Fulfilled Prime delivery-promise issue that has become commercially critical for us as we approach Christmas.

We are Prime Active, use automated 0-day handling, dispatch promptly and predominantly use Royal Mail Tracked 24 purchased through Amazon Buy Shipping.

However, the delivery proposition Amazon is currently showing our customers is substantially worse than our actual delivery performance and, in many cases, worse than simply using an ordinary non-Prime shipping template.

OUR CURRENT FULFILMENT INSIGHTS

Amazon's own current Fulfilment Insights show:

- Promised delivery time: 4.0 calendar days

- Actual delivery time: 1.9 calendar days

- Promise gap: 2.1 calendar days

- Promised transit time: 2.4 calendar days

- Actual transit time: 1.2 calendar days

- Handling-time gap: 0.0 days

- Average promise extension applied by Amazon: 0.8 calendar days

- OTDR without promise extensions: 96.7%

- OTDR with promise extensions: 96.7%

- Improvement produced by the extension: 0.0%

Amazon's own Fulfilment Insights simultaneously tells us:

“Unnecessarily long delivery dates can deter buyers from purchasing your product.”

That is precisely what is happening.

Amazon is already promising 4.0 days for orders that actually arrive in 1.9 days, yet is then adding a further 0.8-day extension which, according to Amazon's own dashboard, has improved OTDR by 0.0%.

LIVE PRIME VS STANDARD COMPARISON

We have now tested the customer-facing promises under controlled conditions using the same products, warehouse and fulfilment operation.

The comparison was performed after our daily cut-off, so Tuesday 25 August is the next fulfilment day. Automated Handling is active at 0 days.

For an East of England delivery address:

- SFP Prime template using SSA: FREE delivery Saturday 29 August for Prime

- Standard merchant-fulfilled template: FREE delivery 26–27 August

For a London delivery address:

- SFP Prime template using SSA: FREE delivery Saturday 29 August for Prime

- Standard merchant-fulfilled template: FREE delivery 27–28 August

For non-Prime customers the disparity can be even greater:

- SFP-template product: FREE delivery Tuesday 1 September

- Standard merchant-fulfilled template: FREE delivery 26–27 August

In other words, Seller Fulfilled Prime is currently producing a materially slower customer delivery promise than our ordinary merchant-fulfilled shipping.

We are also frequently losing the visible Prime badge because of the extended SFP delivery promise.

THE CUSTOMER-FACING PROMISE DOES NOT REFLECT THE SERVICE WE ACTUALLY PROVIDE

The commercial impact is particularly difficult for us to understand.

A Prime customer is currently being shown FREE delivery Saturday 29 August, even though the order would be dispatched by us on Tuesday 25 August using a next-day-class service.

Amazon's own Shipping Settings Automation states that our selected Royal Mail and DPD services provide One-Day coverage to 96% of the UK population and Two-Day coverage to 97.1%.

Amazon's own Fulfilment Insights also measures our actual average carrier transit time at only 1.2 calendar days.

In practical terms, this means that many customers being shown Saturday 29 August would normally receive their order around Wednesday 26 August, potentially three days earlier than the delivery date Amazon is displaying to them.

This is not simply a cosmetic difference. A customer choosing between otherwise comparable products will make their purchasing decision based on the delivery date Amazon shows before they order. They cannot know that our actual fulfilment operation is likely to deliver substantially earlier.

That is exactly why we need help correcting the customer-facing promise rather than simply being told that the underlying order remains Prime eligible.

PREMIUM DELIVERY IS NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM EITHER

We are eligible for Premium Delivery, but the One-Day Premium option is frequently not displayed at all.

When it does appear, we have repeatedly seen the supposedly faster One-Day Premium delivery date fall at the end of, or even later than, the FREE Standard delivery window.

A customer can therefore be presented with a Premium delivery option that provides no meaningful delivery advantage over Standard.

We have also discovered that a single carrier-late Premium order can materially affect Premium Delivery eligibility because of the relatively small number of qualifying orders in the measurement period.

SELLER SUPPORT HAS ALREADY INVESTIGATED THIS

We have spent several hours with Seller Fulfilled Prime Support.

They confirmed that promise padding is currently being applied because our OTDR has fallen below the separate 97% level being used for SFP delivery promises.

Seller Support also explicitly confirmed:

“This padding will only affect promise showing on the website and not the actual promise received on the order.”

This means the additional padding is affecting what prospective customers see rather than changing the fulfilment commitment subsequently given to us on the order.

That distinction is commercially extremely important to us because it is the customer-facing promise that determines whether a customer decides to purchase in the first place.

WE NEED HELP GETTING THIS CORRECTED

We are not really looking for another explanation of how promise extensions work or links to Help pages.

We have spent a considerable amount of time understanding the mechanics already.

What we urgently need is for somebody from the appropriate MFN / SFP / Delivery Promise technical team to look at our account and help determine why our customer-facing promises are so far removed from our demonstrated delivery performance.

In particular, could somebody please help us establish and correct:

- Why SFP with SSA produces materially slower delivery promises than our ordinary Standard MFN template using the same warehouse and carriers.

- Why Premium One-Day Delivery is frequently absent or can display a delivery date no better than Standard.

- Why Amazon is adding an average 0.8-day promise extension when its own dashboard says this improved OTDR by 0.0%.

- Whether our regional SFP delivery-promise configuration, SSA settings and account-level promise calculation can be technically reviewed.

- How genuine carrier-caused delivery outliers should be treated when shipping has been purchased through Amazon Buy Shipping.

On that final point, Seller Support has advised us to obtain written confirmation from the carrier for individual carrier-caused delivery misses and submit this to Amazon for possible exemption.

We are attempting to do this with Royal Mail without much luck as obtaining individual written acknowledgements from a national carrier every time an isolated parcel is delivered late is clearly not a viable long-term mechanism for maintaining SFP performance.

If we purchase Royal Mail shipping through Amazon Buy Shipping, dispatch on time and Amazon receives the carrier's tracking scans directly, is there a more practical mechanism for protecting sellers from genuine carrier-caused delivery outliers?

We completely accept that Amazon needs strong delivery-performance standards, and we are actively addressing the small number of delivery misses within our control.

We have also adjusted transit times for destinations where our own analysis showed that the previous promise was too optimistic.

What we cannot commercially sustain is paying for same-day fulfilment and next-day-class carrier services while Amazon presents our Prime offers to customers as slower than our ordinary Standard shipping.

We invest substantially in Amazon Advertising. When that advertising sends customers to a listing without a visible Prime badge and with a materially later delivery date than competing offers, our advertising spend is placed at a serious disadvantage.

Christmas is a major trading period for our business. If we cannot get onto a level playing field before then, the impact on our Amazon business could be extremely serious.

Could somebody from the MFN team please take ownership of this, review the account-level delivery-promise behaviour and help us get this in front of the team that can actually correct it?

We can provide our existing Seller Support Case ID, affected ASINs, screenshots, Fulfilment Insights reports and live Prime-versus-Standard delivery comparisons privately if required.

Many thanks

Hi all,

Posting partly for advice and partly in the hope a community manager can pick this up internally — case IDs are at the bottom.

Our best-selling UK ASIN (creatine gummies, food supplement) was removed by the Food Safety and Compliance team on 28 July 2026. It is still down today, 17 August — 20 calendar days, 13 business days.

The short version: we were told exactly what was wrong, we fixed all of it within 72 hours, Amazon confirmed in writing three separate times that reinstatement takes 1 to 2 business days once evaluation completes, and three weeks later we still have no decision, no reason, and no owner.

Timeline

- 28 Jul – Appeal filed with 7 compliance documents (Certificate of Conformity, HACCP, IQNET, EMS certificate, CoA, lab report, FBO Product Compliance Questionnaire V7).

- 29 Jul – Support advised manual reinstatement via Manage Products. Failed with error 90244 (TOTAL_SERVINGS_PER_CONTAINER).

- 29 Jul – After a call, support confirmed the actual removal reason: four mandatory statements missing from the detail page – "Do not exceed the recommended daily dose", "Keep out of reach of children", "Food Supplements are not a substitute for a varied diet", plus our UK business address. We were asked to update the detail page and reply on the compliance case with labelling images.

- 29 Jul – Documents resubmitted with the full label PDF.

- 29 Jul – Support confirmed error 90244 is an Amazon-side product type mismatch (HEALTH_PERSONAL_CARE instead of NUTRITIONAL_SUPPLEMENT for the browse node) that cannot be corrected until the ASIN is reinstated.

- **29 Jul – First written statement that "reinstatement may take 1 to 2 business days to complete once the evaluation is finished."

- 30 Jul – We reported a backend error preventing us from adding the label images and warnings ourselves, and asked Amazon to apply them on our behalf.

- 30 Jul – Told the detail page cannot be updated while the ASIN is blocked, and that Amazon could not update it either. So: update a page Amazon has disabled, which Amazon also won't touch. Timeline repeated as 1 to 2 business days.

- 30 Jul – Requested escalation, flagging that the case said "under review" while Account Health said "Submit new information". Told support cannot intervene in or accelerate the compliance team's review.

- 1 Aug – 10 documents submitted (added ALS testing report and three label images). We also found a workaround and got the label images onto the detail page and the safety statements into the bullets. Every instruction from 29 July now complete.

- 2 Aug – Support itemised all 10 documents, confirmed the detail page was updated, and repeated the 1 to 2 business day timeline for the third time.

- 3 Aug – Told documents are with Food Safety and Compliance, the "Submit new information" prompt does not mean rejection, and no further action is required from us.

- 6 Aug – Full document set submitted again. Case passed to an internal team for investigation.

- 8 Aug – Internal team "actively working", no update.

- 14 Aug – Still "researching in partnership with the responsible team".

- 17 Aug – Nothing. AHD still shows "Our evaluation is in progress" and "No further action is required from you at this time."

Where we're stuck

1. Across 5 submissions and 12 replies, not one response has identified a single document as insufficient or a single requirement as unmet. We can't fix what nobody will name.

2. The case status and the Account Health Dashboard have contradicted each other since 30 July. We've raised it three times and still can't get a straight answer on whether the appeal is genuinely open or was auto-closed.

3. Seller Support says it has no ability to reach the compliance team. Account Health says no action is required from us. Nobody owns the decision.

Questions for the group

- Has anyone had a Food Safety and Compliance review on a supplement ASIN run this far past the stated timeline, and what actually broke the deadlock?

- Does the "Submit new information" prompt in AHD sitting alongside an "under review" case status usually mean the appeal has silently been rejected? Several older threads suggest it does, which is what worries me most.

- Is resubmitting the same documents a sixth time actively harmful at this point — does it reset a queue position?

To any community manager reading: the case IDs are 13102035632 (Seller Support) and 13101531472 (Product Safety & Compliance). Both are open and current. Any help getting a named owner and a decision date on the compliance case would be genuinely appreciated — happy to provide anything else needed by DM.

Thanks in advance.