AMZ Sellers Attorney Wins $1.8 Million Arbitration Against Amazon

Image: Shutterstock

AMZ Sellers Attorney Wins $1.8 Million Arbitration Against Amazon

In a landmark arbitration case, AMZ Sellers Attorney successfully secured a $1.8 million award against Amazon on behalf of a Chinese corporate seller. This decision, issued by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), marks a significant victory for third-party sellers on the Amazon platform.

Background of the Case

A Chinese corporate seller, referred to as the claimant or SMI, was a third-party seller on Amazon.com. The company participated in the Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program, which facilitated the sale and distribution of its products. In accordance with Amazon's Business Solutions Agreement (BSA), SMI agreed to Amazon's service terms and policies. However, in January 2021, Amazon suspended SMI's selling privileges, citing violations of customer review policies.

Amazon restored SMI's selling privileges briefly in February 2021, only to terminate them permanently two days later. This abrupt and final suspension led SMI to file an arbitration demand against Amazon, alleging several breaches and unfair practices.

Arbitration Demand and Issues

SMI's Amended Demand, submitted in November 2022, framed the issues for this arbitration. The claims included:

• Breach of Contract: SMI alleged that Amazon breached the contract or violated the principle of good faith and fair dealing by terminating SMI's selling privileges and retaining its net sales proceeds.
• Conversion: SMI claimed that Amazon's retention of its net sales proceeds constituted conversion, a tort that involves the wrongful possession or use of someone else's property.
• Violation of Bailment: SMI argued that Amazon's retention of the net sales proceeds was a violation of bailment, which refers to the process of placing property in the custody and control of another, usually by agreement, for a specific purpose.

Partial Final Award

On November 9, 2023, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award, which was a significant step towards resolving the dispute. The Arbitrator ruled that the "permanent funds withholding" provision of Section 2 of the BSA was an unenforceable penalty. Amazon had relied on this provision to justify retaining all of SMI's net sales proceeds, arguing that it was a form of liquidated damages. However, the Arbitrator found this provision to be a penalty rather than a reasonable estimate of damages, thus unenforceable.

The Partial Final Award required Amazon to return the net sales proceeds to SMI, but the exact amount to be refunded remained undetermined at that time. The Arbitrator instructed both parties to submit further evidence and develop an agreed plan for determining the amount of net proceeds Amazon should return to SMI.

Final Award

The Final Award, dated June 12, 2024, incorporated the Partial Final Award and addressed the remaining issues. The Arbitrator, Deborah A. Coleman, provided detailed findings and reasoning on the amount of net sales proceeds Amazon must return to SMI and whether SMI's additional claims were within the scope of the arbitration.

Key Findings of Fact

• Amazon's Suspension of SMI: It was undisputed that Amazon suspended SMI as a third-party seller originally on January 14, 2021. Privileges were restored on February 14, 2021, and permanently suspended on February 16, 2021.
• SMI's Violation of Customer Review Policies: SMI violated Amazon's customer review policies, which provided cause for the termination of SMI as a third-party seller on Amazon.
• Validity of the Permanent Suspension: The Partial Final Award and Order found that Amazon was not precluded from permanently suspending SMI on February 16, 2021, notwithstanding the brief renewal of privileges two days before.
• Post-Termination Sales Proceeds: After January 14, 2021, Amazon fulfilled existing orders for SMI products, which were credited to SMI's U.S. account. From January 14, 2021, through mid-December 2023, Amazon made deductions from SMI's net proceeds in its North American accounts for various purposes, including advertising deductions classified as "Merchant Bad Debt FBA."

Burden of Proof

A significant aspect of the Final Award was determining which party bore the burden of proof regarding the amount of net sales proceeds Amazon must transfer to SMI. The Arbitrator concluded that Amazon had the burden of proof. Since Amazon claimed the right to retain funds as offsets for SMI's obligations, it was required to provide factual support for its claims, which it failed to do to a satisfactory extent.

Amazon's Post-Termination Deductions

The Arbitrator found that while Amazon was authorized under the BSA to make certain post-termination deductions, it did not provide sufficient evidence to justify all the deductions it made. Specifically, Amazon failed to support its offset of miscellaneous ledger adjustments for past due advertising invoices. Although there was evidence that SMI likely owed something for unpaid advertising services, Amazon did not identify the unpaid invoices or offer sufficient evidence of the total unpaid amount.

SMI's Claim for Storage Charges

SMI also claimed for storage charges related to inventory that was requested for return but not received. The Arbitrator found that Amazon continued to charge storage fees despite SMI's requests for removal or disposal of its inventory, and awarded SMI $8,695.79 for these storage charges.

Costs

SMI's demand for litigation costs and arbitration fees, was denied. The Arbitrator concluded that SMI must bear its own filing and administrative fees, and that the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator should be borne equally by both parties.

Award Summary

Amazon was ordered to pay SMI the following amounts within thirty days from the date of transmittal of the Final Award:

• $1,815,024.61 USD
• $10,540.21 CAD
• $187,143.99 MXN

Additionally, the administrative fees and expenses of the ICDR totaling $8,625.00 were to be borne as incurred, and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator totaling $36,810.00 were to be borne equally by SMI and Amazon.

Impact on Third-Party Sellers

The ruling is important for other third-party sellers on Amazon who may face similar issues. It underscores the importance of fair contract enforcement and provides a pathway for sellers to reclaim funds wrongfully withheld by Amazon. The successful arbitration by AMZ Sellers Attorney highlights the significance of legal representation in disputes with large corporations like Amazon.

Conclusion

The AMZ Sellers Attorney team's diligent efforts and strategic legal maneuvers played a pivotal role in securing this landmark victory. This case serves as a reminder of the legal recourse available to businesses and the potential for favorable outcomes through arbitration.

For more details on the case, contact AMZ Sellers Attorney®.