Customs, Tariffs and Cross-Border Trade

IEEPA Tariff Refunds for Amazon Sellers: Who Actually Gets the Money

The Supreme Court voided the tariffs. Customs is refunding roughly $166 billion. But the refund goes to the importer of record — and most marketplace sellers are not the importer of record.

By Kenneth G. Eade, Esq., Founding Attorney, AMZ Sellers Attorney®  |  Published August 23, 2026  |  Approximately 12 minute read

Short Answer

If you sold on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy or TikTok Shop and imported goods between February 2025 and February 2026, you probably paid tariffs that the Supreme Court has since held were imposed without legal authority. Customs and Border Protection is refunding those duties with interest. Whether you personally see any of that money depends almost entirely on one line in a customs form you may never have read: the importer of record.

If your supplier shipped delivered duty paid, or your freight forwarder or 3PL handled clearance in its own name, the refund and the interest are being paid to that party. Not to you. Getting it back is a contract dispute, and in some cases a lawsuit, not a customs filing.

What the Supreme Court actually decided

In February 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided together with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The ruling invalidated the IEEPA-based duties that had been collected on imports beginning in early 2025 — the reciprocal tariffs, the fentanyl-related surcharges applied to goods of Canadian, Mexican and Chinese origin, and the various country-specific actions that followed. Within days the administration terminated the underlying orders and Customs stopped collecting IEEPA duties on entries made on or after February 24, 2026.

The scale is the part that matters to sellers. By the government's own accounting to the Court of International Trade, roughly 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. That is not an abstraction. It is a very large number of $300 and $900 and $4,000 charges sitting inside the landed cost of ordinary FBA inventory.

What the decision did not touch is equally important. Section 232 duties on steel, aluminum and other covered categories, Section 301 duties on goods of Chinese origin, and antidumping and countervailing duties all rest on separate statutory authority. They remain in force and they are not refundable through this process. Any credible refund analysis begins by separating IEEPA duties from everything else on the entry.

How Customs is paying the money back

Refunds are not automatic. Customs built a new module inside the ACE Secure Data Portal called CAPE, for Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries. A claimant uploads a CSV file listing entry numbers — up to 9,999 per declaration, with multiple declarations permitted — and Customs validates the file, confirms the submitter's authority, recalculates duties, and consolidates approved refunds into a single electronic payment with statutory interest. Ordinary post summary corrections cannot be used for this purpose. CAPE is the channel.

The rollout has been phased, and the phases are not cosmetic. They determine whether recovery is administrative or judicial.

Phase	Opened	What it covers
Phase 1	April 20, 2026	Unliquidated entries, and entries within roughly 80 days of liquidation. The clean path.
Phase 2	June 29, 2026	Entries flagged for reconciliation where no reconciliation entry has yet been filed, subject to the same liquidation limits.
Phase 3	Late July 2026	Finally liquidated entries. As implemented, processed for importers who filed their own actions at the Court of International Trade. This is the cliff.

The problem nobody is writing about: you are probably not the importer of record

Every guide published on this subject so far has been written by a customs broker, a freight forwarder, or an accounting firm, and every one of them is addressed to the importer of record. That is a reasonable audience for those authors. It is the wrong audience for an Amazon seller.

Customs pays the importer of record named on the entry, or a party that importer has designated on CBP Form 4811. Consider how a typical FBA supply chain is actually structured:

• A Chinese manufacturer quotes delivered duty paid pricing. The manufacturer, its affiliate, or a nominated agent clears the goods. The seller sees one number on a proforma invoice and never touches a 7501.
• A freight forwarder or consolidator offers an all-in door-to-Amazon rate and clears in its own name under its own bond, invoicing the seller for duties as a pass-through line item.
• A 3PL or prep center handles inbound clearance for a group of clients and allocates duty charges across accounts.
• The seller imports in its own name, with its own bond and its own ACE account. This is the minority case among small and mid-sized sellers.

In the first three scenarios, the refund is legally the importer of record's to collect. The seller paid the duty economically but has no standing with Customs on that entry. And because approved refunds carry statutory interest running from the original entry date, the amount now sitting with that third party exceeds what the seller originally paid.

The practical test. Pull CBP Form 7501 for a representative shipment from mid-2025 and read block 1. If a name other than your operating entity is there, the refund for that entry is not coming to you unless you go get it.

What a seller can actually do about it

Where a third party holds the refund, this stops being a customs question and becomes a commercial dispute. The theories available depend heavily on the paper, but the recurring ones are these.

Breach of contract and the duty line item

Where the seller was invoiced a specific duty or tariff surcharge as a pass-through charge, the agreement often characterizes that amount as a reimbursement of a cost incurred on the seller's behalf rather than as part of the service price. If the cost has now been refunded, the reimbursement obligation is arguably extinguished and retention of the refund is a breach. The strength of this argument tracks directly to how the charge was described on the invoice and in the rate agreement. Sellers whose forwarder simply quoted a single all-in number are in a materially weaker position than sellers whose invoices itemized duties separately.

Agency and the broker's obligations to its principal

A licensed customs broker acting for a client operates as an agent, with the accounting and disclosure duties that role carries. Where a broker or forwarder filed entries as agent, collected duty funds from the client, and has now recovered those funds from the government, the argument that the recovery belongs to the principal is a strong one. Where the forwarder acted as principal under its own bond and sold the seller a landed-cost product, the argument is harder and the answer turns on the contract.

Unjust enrichment and money had and received

Where no contract term squarely governs, restitution theories fill the gap. The elements are unusually clean here: the seller conferred a benefit, the third party retained it, and retention without payment is inequitable because the underlying obligation was void from the start. These claims are useful precisely because they do not depend on a well-drafted agreement, which most sellers do not have.

Read the forum and limitation clauses before you write the demand letter

This is where sellers lose otherwise good claims. Forwarder terms and conditions, NVOCC bills of lading, and 3PL service agreements routinely contain a foreign or inconvenient choice of forum, an arbitration clause, and — most dangerously — a contractual suit limitation far shorter than any statute of limitations, commonly nine months or one year from delivery. A seller who spends eighteen months politely asking a forwarder for an update may discover the claim was time-barred long before the refund was even processed. The paper controls, and it should be read before the first email is sent.

Where the supplier is the party holding the refund, add the practical problem that the counterparty is often offshore, judgment-proof in any realistic sense, and still supplying the seller's inventory. That combination usually points toward negotiated credit against future purchase orders rather than litigation, and the leverage for that negotiation is best created early, while the commercial relationship still has value to both sides.

If you were the importer of record, your problem is the calendar

Sellers who imported in their own name face a different and more urgent risk: entries liquidating out from under them.

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, a protest against a Customs decision must generally be filed within 180 days of liquidation. Unliquidated entries and recently liquidated entries fall inside the straightforward CAPE path. Finally liquidated entries do not. In July 2026 the Court of International Trade entered an order directing refunds on a plaintiff's finally liquidated entries and signaled that substantially similar relief would follow in the several thousand cases pending before it. Importers who never filed their own action have no equivalent confirmed administrative route for that category, and the government has appealed the scope of that relief to the Federal Circuit.

Reduced to its practical terms: entries are quietly liquidating every week, and each one that liquidates and ages past the protest window moves from the easy category to the category that may require a lawsuit — or may not be recoverable at all, depending on how the appeal resolves. Treating this as an open-ended administrative process is the single most expensive mistake available.

The second wave: what you told your customers

Many sellers responded to the tariffs by raising prices, and some did so transparently, itemizing a tariff surcharge at checkout or on wholesale invoices. Those sellers now sit on both sides of the transaction. They may be creditors of their forwarder or supplier, and they may be defendants to downstream purchasers arguing that a surcharge collected to fund a duty that has now been refunded should be returned. Claims of exactly this shape have already been filed against importers, and there is no reason to expect marketplace sellers to be exempt.

The exposure is largest where the surcharge was expressly labeled as a tariff recovery rather than folded into the price. Sellers in that position should be preserving records now showing what was collected, what was remitted, and to whom, before characterizing any recovered refund in their books.

One warning about the filing itself

A CAPE declaration is a representation to the federal government. Where the underlying entries contain valuation problems, misdescribed goods, incorrect country-of-origin declarations, or transshipment through an intermediary at a reduced declared value, filing a refund claim on those entries invites Customs to examine them closely. Penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592 are available for fraud, gross negligence and negligence in connection with entry, and false statements to a federal agency carry independent criminal exposure.

A refund claim is a bad reason to volunteer a customs file that will not withstand review. Where the entries are clean, file promptly. Where they are not, the analysis should happen before anything is submitted, and it should happen under privilege.

A Related Development Sellers Keep Misreading

On August 13, 2026, the Court of International Trade issued Axle of Dearborn, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Slip Op. 26-94, upholding the suspension of the de minimis exemption. The court reasoned that removing a duty-free treatment is not the same legal act as imposing a tariff. The refund of IEEPA duties and the end of the $800 threshold are two separate developments, and winning the first does not resurrect the second. Sellers planning 2027 sourcing on the assumption that sub-$800 parcels will clear duty-free again are planning on a fact that is not in evidence.

What to do this week

1. Pull your entry documents. Request CBP Form 7501 for every inbound shipment from February 2025 through February 2026 from whoever cleared them. A forwarder that resists producing entry summaries for shipments it handled on your behalf has told you something useful.
2. Read block 1 on each one. Sort your entries into two piles: those where you are the importer of record, and those where you are not. The two piles get completely different treatment.
3. Isolate the IEEPA duties. Look for Chapter 99 classifications in the 9903.01 and 9903.02 ranges. Do not build a claim that sweeps in Section 301 or Section 232 amounts.
4. Calendar liquidation on every entry you own. Then work backward from the 180-day protest window. Do this before anything else if you imported in your own name.
5. Locate the contract governing your forwarder or supplier relationship, including the terms on the back of the bill of lading and anything incorporated by reference on a website. Find the limitation period and the forum clause before you send a demand.
6. Preserve your customer-facing pricing records if you ever itemized a tariff surcharge.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who receives the IEEPA tariff refund if my supplier was the importer of record?

Customs issues the refund to the importer of record listed on the customs entry, or to a party that importer designated on CBP Form 4811. If a supplier shipping on delivered duty paid terms, a freight forwarder, a consolidator, or a 3PL was named, the refund and its statutory interest go to that party. The seller who bore the duty as a line item on an invoice has no direct claim against Customs for that entry. Recovery becomes a contract matter against the party holding the money.

Can an Amazon seller file a CAPE claim directly?

Only if the seller was the importer of record on the entry, or is a licensed customs broker properly authorized by that importer of record. A CAPE declaration is submitted through the ACE Secure Data Portal as a CSV file of entry numbers. Sellers who imported in their own name with their own customs bond can generally file. Sellers who relied on a supplier's delivered duty paid arrangement generally cannot.

How do I tell whether I actually paid IEEPA duties?

Review CBP Form 7501 entry summaries for shipments arriving between February 2025 and late February 2026 and look for Chapter 99 tariff classifications in the 9903.01 and 9903.02 ranges. Importers with ACE portal access can export the Entry Summary Detail Report and filter on those classifications. If your only documentation is a supplier or forwarder invoice showing a tariff surcharge, that is evidence of what you paid but not evidence of what Customs collected from you.

What is the deadline to claim an IEEPA tariff refund?

There is no single calendar deadline for the refund program, but each entry carries its own clock. A protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 must generally be filed within 180 days after liquidation. Entries that liquidate and pass that window without a protest move into the hardest recovery category. Waiting converts an administrative claim into a litigation claim, and eventually into no claim at all.

Are Section 301 or Section 232 tariffs refundable as well?

No. The February 2026 Supreme Court decision addressed tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Section 232 duties on steel, aluminum and other covered products, Section 301 duties on goods of Chinese origin, and antidumping and countervailing duties rest on separate statutory authority and are unaffected. Any refund analysis has to separate IEEPA duties from those other duties before a claim is filed.

Do I need to file a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade?

It depends on the liquidation status of the entries. In July 2026 the Court of International Trade entered an order directing refunds on a plaintiff's finally liquidated entries and indicated similar relief in the several thousand cases pending before it. Importers who never filed suit have no equivalent confirmed administrative route for that category, and the government has appealed the scope of that relief to the Federal Circuit. Where a meaningful share of duties sits in finally liquidated entries, a protective filing should be evaluated promptly rather than deferred.

What if I passed the tariff cost through to my customers?

That creates exposure on the other side of the ledger. Sellers who itemized a tariff surcharge at checkout or in wholesale invoices may face claims from downstream purchasers seeking recovery of amounts that have now been refunded or are refundable. Litigation of this kind has already begun against importers. Preserve records showing what was collected, what was remitted, and to whom, before deciding how to characterize a recovered refund.

Does the refund include interest?

Yes. Approved refunds are issued with statutory interest running from the original entry, consolidated by importer of record and paid electronically. Because interest accrues to the party Customs pays, the amount at stake in an importer-of-record dispute is larger than the duty figure alone, and grows the longer the underlying claim goes unresolved.

Find out whose account your refund is sitting in

We review your entry documents, identify the importer of record on each shipment, calculate your liquidation and protest deadlines, and tell you whether your recovery runs through Customs, through your forwarder or supplier, or through the Court of International Trade. Sellers who also have funds held by a marketplace should ask about combining the two recoveries.

Request a free consultation  |  +1 888 806 2440  |  [email protected]

Related reading

• The BSA amendment that reaches your lender, your buyer, and your frozen funds
• Amazon arbitration: recovering frozen funds and withheld disbursements
• Amazon seller legal services: suspensions, IP defense, TRO defense and arbitration

About the author. Kenneth G. Eade is the founding attorney of AMZ Sellers Attorney®, a Beverly Hills e-commerce and intellectual property firm. He has practiced law since 1980 (California State Bar No. 93774) and is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before founding the firm he built and operated a seven-figure Amazon FBA business. The firm is Sermondo Top 10-listed among e-commerce law firms and represents marketplace sellers worldwide in arbitration, frozen funds recovery, cross-border trade disputes, and IP enforcement and defense.

This article is educational only and is not legal advice, tax advice, or customs compliance advice. Tariff and refund rules remain the subject of active litigation and regulatory change, and eligibility depends on the specific facts of each entry. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Attorney advertising. For an attorney review of your entries and deadlines, contact AMZ Sellers Attorney® at +1 888 806 2440 or [email protected].

Marketplace Compliance  |  Updated August 15, 2026

Amazon's AI-Generated People Rule: What the contains-synthetic-performer Tag Actually Requires

By Kenneth G. Eade, Esq. — Founding Attorney, AMZ Sellers Attorney, Ltd.  |  California Bar No. 93774  |  Practicing law since 1980

Short answer: On July 22, 2026, Amazon began requiring sellers to embed the keyword contains-synthetic-performer in the dc:subject (XMP) metadata field of any product image or video showing a photorealistic person generated entirely by AI, before upload, in every worldwide store. It is a file metadata requirement, not a Seller Central checkbox. Most catalogs are outside the rule. The catalogs inside it face an enforcement exposure that has less to do with the New York fine and more to do with Account Health.

What Amazon actually changed on July 22, 2026

Amazon's seller notice is narrow and technical. Before you add an image or video to a listing or to A+ Content, you must use an IPTC-compatible metadata editor to write the exact keyword contains-synthetic-performer into the file's dc:subject XMP field. Where the tag is present, Amazon surfaces an indicator telling shoppers the media includes AI-generated people.

Three features of the rule deserve attention that the operational coverage has not given them.

First, it is embedded metadata, not a form field. Nothing in Seller Central asks you the question. The disclosure travels inside the file. That means the compliance failure mode is not a seller who refuses to disclose — it is a seller who disclosed correctly and whose asset pipeline destroyed the tag. Resizing tools, compression utilities, CDN transforms, and export presets routinely strip XMP on write. A brand that tags at the design stage and hands off to an agency that re-exports for Amazon's dimension specs can arrive at upload with a stripped file and no notice that anything happened.

Second, the identification duty is entirely yours. Amazon does not classify your assets for you. It has published a rule and moved the judgment call onto the account holder. Every borderline asset in your catalog is a decision you made, and it is a decision you will have to defend if it is ever questioned.

Third, Amazon applied it globally. The rule originates in a single U.S. state statute. Amazon extended it to all worldwide stores as a term of the Business Solutions Agreement. A seller in Frankfurt or Shenzhen with no New York nexus whatsoever is now bound — by contract, not by law.

When does the tag apply, and when does it not?

Amazon's carve-outs are broader than most sellers assume. You do not need the tag if your image or video:

• Contains no people at all — which describes the majority of product catalogs;
• Features only real people, even if those people were altered with AI tools (relighting, background replacement, retouching, cleanup);
• Features only characters from films, television, streaming content, documentaries, video games, or similar expressive works;
• Features people who are not photorealistic — illustration, cartoon, stylized rendering.

The rule targets one thing: a convincing human being who never existed. The AI lifestyle model in your A+ module holding your product. The invented spokesperson in your shoppable video. The synthetic "customer" in your comparison chart.

The exemption is not an exemption from liability

This is the part I would flag hardest for any brand that has been buying AI creative for the past eighteen months.

The carve-out for real people altered with AI tools takes you outside the tagging rule. It does not take you outside anything else. If your AI pipeline produced an image that resembles an identifiable real person — whether you intended it or not, and generative models do this without being asked — you have left the disclosure statute and entered right-of-publicity territory. New York's synthetic performer amendment says expressly that it does not alter rights under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50, 50-f, and 51, which govern name, image, likeness, and digital replicas.

Those statutes are considerably more dangerous to a seller than a $1,000 disclosure penalty. They carry private enforcement. They carry damages. And the same New York legislative session that produced the tagging obligation strengthened the digital replica regime alongside it.

So the compliance posture is not "tag it or don't." It is: identify what is in the frame, and understand which body of law that answer puts you in. A synthetic person nobody recognizes is a tagging question. A synthetic person who looks like somebody is a likeness question. The second one does not get solved by adding a keyword.

What is the New York law behind this?

New York General Business Law § 396-b, as amended by S.8420-A / A.8887-B, took effect on June 9, 2026. Governor Hochul's office described it as first-in-the-nation. It requires any person in the business of dealing in property or services who produces or creates a commercial advertisement to conspicuously disclose that a synthetic performer appears in it, where that person has actual knowledge of the synthetic performer.

A "synthetic performer" is a digital asset created, reproduced, or modified by computer using generative AI or a software algorithm, intended to give the impression of an audiovisual or visual performance by a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural person.

Penalties are $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent violation. The statute contains no express private right of action, which points enforcement toward the New York Attorney General rather than plaintiff-side litigation.

The unsettled question nobody has answered

Read that definition again. It turns on a performance. Whether a static product photograph of an AI-generated model standing next to a blender constitutes a "visual performance of a human performer" is genuinely unresolved. The statute does not define "performer" or "performance," and it does not define "conspicuous" either. Commentators have read the terms expansively enough to capture background extras; a narrower reading would confine the statute to something closer to advertising talent.

I raise this not as an argument for non-compliance. Amazon's requirement binds you contractually whatever § 396-b turns out to mean, and the tagging burden is trivial. I raise it because sellers are being told a state statute clearly governs their product photos, and it does not clearly do anything of the kind. If you are ever asked to defend a classification decision, the ambiguity is on your side of the ledger, not Amazon's.

Where the real risk sits: Account Health, not the fine

A seller reading only the New York penalty schedule will conclude this is a rounding error. That is the wrong frame.

An untagged qualifying asset is not primarily a state law violation. It is a listing content violation under the Business Solutions Agreement. Content violations move through Amazon's enforcement stack the way every other content violation does: image suppression, then listing suppression, then a policy violation posted to your Account Health dashboard, then — in a pattern, or in combination with unrelated flags — deactivation of the account and a hold on your disbursements.

That is a $1,000 statutory problem converting into a five- or six-figure commercial problem, and it converts through a channel most sellers are not watching.

There is a second-order risk worth naming. Rules of this kind become instruments. A competitor who wants your A+ Content taken down now has a new complaint category to use against you, and Amazon's complaint intake is not built to adjudicate whether the woman in your lifestyle image is real. We have defended enough pretextual IP complaints to know how this pattern develops.

A practical audit for the next thirty days

1. Inventory the exposure. Pull every main image, secondary image, A+ module, brand story asset, and shoppable video added since roughly early 2025. You are looking for photorealistic humans. If your catalog has none, you are finished — document that conclusion and move on.
2. Classify each human asset into one of three buckets: real person (no tag), fully AI-generated person (tag required), or uncertain provenance (investigate before deciding).
3. Treat "uncertain provenance" as the priority. Assets from a former agency, a marketplace stock library, or a freelancer who has since disappeared are the ones you cannot classify by looking. If you cannot establish that a real human sat for the image, you do not know which rule applies.
4. Verify the tag survives your pipeline. Write the keyword, run the file through your actual resize and export process, then re-open the XMP and confirm contains-synthetic-performer is still present in dc:subject. Do this once per pipeline, not once per file.
5. Fix your vendor paperwork. Creative services agreements should require the vendor to identify AI-generated humans in delivered assets, warrant that no delivered asset depicts an identifiable real person without a release, preserve embedded metadata through delivery, and indemnify you for breaches of the first three.
6. Do not over-tag as insurance. Labeling a real human model as a synthetic performer is an inaccurate statement about your advertising, it may conflict with that model's release, and it costs you conversion. Accuracy is the safe harbor, not maximal disclosure.

Frequently asked questions

Does Amazon require sellers to label AI-generated product images?

Only some of them. Since July 22, 2026, Amazon requires the keyword contains-synthetic-performer in an image or video file's XMP metadata when the file shows a photorealistic person generated entirely by AI. Images with no people, non-photorealistic figures, or real people do not require the tag.

What is the contains-synthetic-performer tag and where does it go?

It is a metadata keyword, not a checkbox in Seller Central. Using an IPTC-compatible metadata editor, you add the exact string contains-synthetic-performer to the dc:subject field of the file's XMP metadata before uploading. Amazon then displays a disclosure to shoppers where applicable.

Do I need the tag if I used AI to edit a photo of a real person?

No. Amazon's exemption covers images featuring real people even when altered with AI tools, including AI relighting, background replacement, and retouching. The tag applies only to people who never existed. But that exemption removes the tagging duty, not your right-of-publicity exposure for the real person depicted.

What happens if I fail to tag a qualifying image on Amazon?

The practical risk is platform enforcement, not the state fine. An untagged qualifying asset is a listing content violation, which can produce image or listing suppression, a policy violation on your Account Health dashboard, and in a pattern of violations, deactivation. Separately, New York penalties run $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent one.

Does the New York synthetic performer law apply if I do not sell in New York?

New York GBL 396-b reaches advertising that may reach New York consumers, which national Amazon listings ordinarily do. Amazon's tagging requirement is broader still: it applies in all worldwide stores as a matter of contract under the Business Solutions Agreement, regardless of whether the statute reaches you.

Who is liable if my agency or freelancer created the AI imagery?

New York GBL 396-b conditions the disclosure duty on actual knowledge, which can sit with the producer of the advertisement. Amazon takes a simpler view: the account holder owns every asset uploaded to the listing. Allocate the identification duty and an indemnity in your creative services agreement.

Related reading

• Amazon AAA and ICDR arbitration for suspended sellers and withheld funds
• Amazon seller legal updates and marketplace policy analysis

Suppressed listing or a policy violation tied to your product imagery?

AMZ Sellers Attorney, Ltd. represents Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, and TikTok Shop sellers in listing suppressions, content policy violations, IP complaint defense, account deactivations, and AAA and ICDR arbitration against Amazon. Kenneth G. Eade is a California attorney and a former seven-figure Amazon seller who has been on both sides of the account.

Email: [email protected]  |  9350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 203, Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Attorney Advertising. This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice, and is current as of August 15, 2026. Amazon policies and state law change frequently. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. No attorney-client relationship is formed until a written engagement is signed.

Amazon Account Health Rating (AHR) 2026: How to Prevent Account Deactivation

Amazon Account Health Rating (AHR) is one of the most important indicators Amazon sellers should monitor in 2026. Your AHR helps Amazon evaluate whether your selling account is complying with Amazon policies and whether unresolved violations may place your account at risk of deactivation.

Quick answer: An Amazon Account Health Rating of 200 or higher is generally considered healthy. An AHR below 200 can place an account in the "At Risk" range, while a score below 100 can make an account eligible for deactivation. However, even a healthy AHR does not guarantee that Amazon will never suspend or deactivate an account. Certain serious violations, suspected fraud, illegal activity, deceptive conduct, or conduct Amazon believes threatens customers can result in enforcement regardless of the seller's numerical AHR.

If your Account Health Rating is falling, Amazon has placed your account at risk, or you have already received a suspension or deactivation notice, do not assume that simply deleting the affected listing will solve the problem. Sellers may need to address the underlying policy violation and, when appropriate, submit an effective Amazon account appeal.

What Is Amazon Account Health Rating?

Amazon Account Health Rating, commonly called AHR, is a score that helps sellers understand their compliance with Amazon's selling policies and their risk of account deactivation.

Amazon displays the Account Health Rating within the Account Health section of Seller Central. The score can range from 0 to 1,000 and may change based on factors including unresolved policy violations, the severity of those violations, and selling activity.

The AHR should not be viewed merely as a performance score. It is better understood as a warning system. A declining score may indicate that unresolved compliance problems are creating increasing risk to the seller's ability to continue selling on Amazon.

For that reason, sellers should not wait until the Account Health page turns red or Amazon issues a deactivation notice before responding.

What Is a Good Amazon Account Health Rating in 2026?

An Amazon Account Health Rating of 200 or higher is generally considered healthy. Amazon divides Account Health status into broad risk categories that sellers should understand.

• 200 or higher: Healthy. The account is generally within Amazon's healthy AHR range.
• Below 200 but above 100: At Risk. Amazon may display a warning that the account is at risk of deactivation.
• Below 100: Serious deactivation risk. Amazon states that an account falling below 100 can become eligible for deactivation.

A seller should not interpret an AHR of 200 as permission to ignore unresolved violations. Likewise, a score of 800 or 1,000 does not create absolute immunity from suspension.

Amazon can take immediate action against an account based on serious policy concerns regardless of the numerical AHR.

Amazon AHR Score Chart

200 or above: Generally considered healthy.

101 to 199: Account may be considered at risk of deactivation.

Below 100: Account may become eligible for deactivation and unresolved violations should be addressed immediately.

250 or above: This threshold is also important because qualifying Professional sellers who maintain an AHR of at least 250 for the required period may become eligible for Amazon Account Health Assurance, subject to Amazon's other program requirements.

Does an AHR Above 200 Mean My Amazon Account Cannot Be Suspended?

No. A healthy Account Health Rating does not guarantee that an Amazon seller account cannot be suspended or deactivated.

This is one of the most important AHR misconceptions for sellers to understand.

The Account Health Rating covers many policy violations that can lead to account-level enforcement, but Amazon states that certain conduct may result in deactivation regardless of AHR. This can include suspected fraudulent, deceptive, illegal, harmful, or otherwise serious activity.

There are also Amazon policies and enforcement mechanisms that may not be fully reflected by the numerical Account Health Rating.

Sellers therefore need to consider both:

• their numerical Account Health Rating; and
• the actual policy and compliance condition of the selling account.

A seller with an AHR of 500 could still face a serious enforcement problem if Amazon identifies conduct it considers sufficiently serious.

Why Does Amazon Account Health Rating Matter?

Your AHR matters because it provides an early indication of policy-related risk before problems necessarily become an account-wide deactivation.

Monitoring Account Health can help sellers:

• identify new policy violations quickly;
• determine which violations carry the greatest account-level risk;
• respond before multiple violations accumulate;
• identify potentially incorrect Amazon enforcement;
• preserve documents that may be needed for an appeal;
• prevent recurring compliance problems;
• maintain eligibility for Account Health Assurance; and
• reduce the risk of an unexpected Amazon account deactivation.

For established Amazon businesses, the consequences of ignoring Account Health can extend far beyond the removal of a single ASIN. Account deactivation can interrupt sales, advertising, inventory movement, cash flow, supplier obligations, and other business operations.

What Causes an Amazon Account Health Rating to Drop?

An Amazon AHR can decline when Amazon identifies policy violations affecting the seller's account. The effect on the score can vary depending on the severity of the violation and other factors used by Amazon's Account Health system.

Common Account Health problems may involve issues such as:

• intellectual property complaints;
• suspected intellectual property violations;
• product authenticity complaints;
• restricted product violations;
• product condition complaints;
• listing policy violations;
• Amazon Seller Code of Conduct issues;
• review or ratings manipulation allegations;
• product safety problems;
• regulatory compliance concerns;
• misuse of product detail pages;
• trademark complaints;
• copyright complaints;
• patent complaints; and
• other policy compliance violations.

The existence of one violation does not necessarily mean the entire account will be immediately deactivated. The severity, number, nature, and status of unresolved violations can matter substantially.

Are All Amazon Account Health Violations Equally Serious?

No. Amazon policy violations can have different levels of Account Health impact.

Amazon has described violation severity using categories including critical, high, medium, low, and, in some circumstances, no AHR impact.

This distinction is important.

A seller should not simply count the number of violations appearing in Account Health. One severe violation may present substantially more account risk than several lower-impact violations.

When multiple violations exist, sellers should generally identify and address the most serious issues promptly while developing an appropriate strategy for all unresolved violations.

What Should I Do If My Amazon AHR Falls Below 200?

If your AHR falls below 200, treat the situation as an Account Health warning rather than waiting for Amazon to deactivate the account.

A practical response includes the following steps:

1. Open the Account Health page immediately. Determine which violations are currently unresolved.
2. Identify the highest-impact violation. Critical and high-severity problems should receive immediate attention.
3. Read the exact Amazon notice. Do not rely only on the short violation label appearing in Seller Central.
4. Determine whether the violation is accurate. Some cases require corrective action; others may warrant a challenge supported by evidence.
5. Preserve supporting documentation. Relevant evidence can include invoices, supplier information, authorization letters, photographs, compliance documents, trademarks, product records, communications, and supply-chain documentation.
6. Correct genuine compliance problems. Address the underlying cause rather than making superficial changes.
7. Prepare an appeal when necessary. The response should directly address Amazon's stated concern and be supported by appropriate documentation.
8. Monitor Account Health after submission. Confirm that the violation is actually resolved rather than assuming submission alone cured it.

If the account is already at risk of deactivation or the violation involves a significant authenticity, intellectual property, related-account, conduct, or compliance allegation, consider obtaining assistance before sending repeated or contradictory responses. Learn more about Amazon seller suspension and deactivation appeals.

What Should I Do If My Amazon AHR Falls Below 100?

An AHR below 100 should be treated as urgent. Amazon guidance indicates that an account falling into this range may become eligible for deactivation.

At this point, sellers should identify exactly which unresolved violations caused or contributed to the decline and determine what Amazon is requesting for each one.

Do not respond impulsively.

A rushed submission that contradicts previous statements, admits conduct that did not occur, provides irrelevant documents, or fails to address the root issue may make the problem more difficult to resolve.

If Amazon has already deactivated the account, review the enforcement notice carefully and determine whether Amazon is requesting:

• an explanation;
• specific supporting documents;
• proof of authenticity;
• supply-chain documentation;
• identity or business verification;
• corrective measures;
• preventive measures;
• an acknowledgement;
• an appeal of an incorrect enforcement decision; or
• another specific form of response.

For assistance with a deactivated account, visit our Amazon account suspension appeal service.

Does Deleting a Listing Remove an Account Health Violation?

No. Deleting or closing an Amazon listing does not automatically resolve the underlying Account Health violation.

This is one of the most common mistakes sellers make after receiving an Amazon policy warning.

A seller may think:

"Amazon objected to the product, so I deleted the ASIN. The problem should disappear."

That is not necessarily how Account Health works.

Amazon has specifically explained that changing a listing's status, including closing or deleting the listing from inventory, does not itself remove an unresolved policy violation from Account Health.

The underlying violation may still need to be addressed through the option Amazon provides for that particular enforcement action.

This distinction is crucial because a seller can remove every affected listing from inventory and still have unresolved violations damaging the account's health.

How Do You Remove an Amazon Account Health Violation?

The correct method depends on the violation.

Possible resolution paths can include:

• successfully appealing an incorrect violation;
• providing requested documentation;
• correcting a noncompliant listing;
• acknowledging a violation when Amazon provides that option;
• demonstrating product authenticity;
• providing evidence of authorization;
• resolving an intellectual property complaint;
• providing regulatory or product safety documentation; or
• taking other corrective action specifically requested by Amazon.

The correct response should be based on the actual enforcement notice rather than a generic appeal template.

How Long Does It Take for Amazon AHR to Update?

Amazon has indicated that after it confirms violations have been successfully addressed, the Account Health Rating may take approximately 24 to 48 hours to update.

That does not mean every appeal will be decided in 24 to 48 hours. It refers to the potential AHR update after Amazon has determined that the relevant issue has been successfully addressed.

Sellers should therefore distinguish between:

• submitting an appeal;
• Amazon reviewing the appeal;
• Amazon resolving or removing the violation; and
• the Account Health score reflecting that resolution.

Why Did My AHR Change Even Though I Have No New Violations?

An Amazon Account Health Rating can fluctuate even when no new violation is visible.

Amazon has explained that selling activity can influence AHR and that Account Health considers activity over a rolling period. As orders move into and out of the relevant measurement period, the score can change even if the visible violation history appears unchanged.

A score change therefore does not always mean Amazon has just issued a new violation.

Nevertheless, sellers should check Account Health whenever a significant change occurs.

Do Amazon Account Health Violations Stay Forever?

Not necessarily. Account Health incorporates policy and selling activity over time, and Amazon has referenced a rolling 180-day measurement period in explaining AHR behavior.

However, sellers should not use this as a strategy for ignoring active violations and simply waiting for them to disappear.

An unresolved violation may expose the account to enforcement before aging out of any applicable measurement window. In addition, a history of repeated policy problems can create separate compliance concerns.

The safer approach is to evaluate and appropriately resolve violations when they occur.

What Is Amazon Account Health Assurance?

Amazon Account Health Assurance, or AHA, is a program designed to give qualifying Professional sellers an opportunity to work with Amazon to resolve certain Account Health issues without immediate account deactivation.

Under Amazon's published eligibility guidance, a Professional seller may qualify by maintaining an AHR of at least 250 for at least six months, with no more than 10 days below 250 during that period, and maintaining a valid emergency contact number, subject to Amazon's current program terms and eligibility requirements.

When an eligible seller encounters a qualifying issue that could otherwise lead to deactivation, an Account Health specialist may contact the seller and explain what needs to be resolved.

Amazon states that the seller generally needs to respond within 72 hours and work with Amazon to resolve the issue to receive the program's protection.

Does Account Health Assurance Guarantee Amazon Cannot Suspend You?

No. Account Health Assurance should not be interpreted as unlimited protection from all Amazon enforcement.

Amazon reserves the ability to take immediate action in connection with serious policy violations and activity it considers fraudulent, deceptive, illegal, harmful, or otherwise sufficiently serious.

AHA should therefore be viewed as an important account-protection benefit, not an exemption from Amazon's policies.

How Can I Become Eligible for Account Health Assurance?

Based on Amazon's current published guidance, sellers should focus on the following:

• maintain a Professional selling account;
• keep the Account Health Rating at 250 or higher;
• maintain that level for at least six months;
• avoid spending more than the permitted number of days below the eligibility threshold;
• keep a valid emergency contact number in Seller Central;
• respond promptly to Amazon Account Health communications; and
• continue complying with Amazon policies.

Because Amazon can change program eligibility criteria, sellers should verify the current requirements directly within Seller Central.

What Is the Difference Between Amazon Account Health and Seller Performance?

Amazon sellers sometimes use "Account Health" as a general term for everything affecting their account, but several different measurements may be involved.

The Account Health Rating focuses primarily on policy compliance and the risk associated with unresolved violations.

Other performance metrics may measure customer-service and fulfillment performance, such as:

• Order Defect Rate;
• Late Shipment Rate;
• Pre-Fulfillment Cancellation Rate;
• Valid Tracking Rate; and
• other marketplace-specific performance requirements.

A seller should monitor the entire Seller Central Account Health environment rather than concentrating solely on the AHR number.

Can One Amazon Policy Violation Cause Account Deactivation?

Yes. A single sufficiently serious violation may potentially lead to account-level action.

Sellers sometimes assume that Amazon deactivates accounts only after several warnings. That assumption can be dangerous.

The seriousness of the alleged conduct may matter more than the number of violations.

For example, Amazon can treat alleged fraud, deceptive practices, serious product safety issues, or other significant violations differently from routine lower-impact listing problems.

This is why sellers should analyze the substance of every significant Account Health notice rather than merely counting the number of warnings.

What Are the Most Dangerous Amazon Account Health Mistakes?

Several common mistakes can turn a manageable Account Health problem into a more serious account-level issue.

1. Ignoring the Violation Because the AHR Is Still Green

A green account does not mean every violation should be ignored. Multiple unresolved violations can accumulate, and certain serious violations may independently trigger enforcement.

2. Deleting the ASIN and Assuming the Violation Is Gone

Deleting a listing does not automatically resolve the underlying Account Health violation.

3. Submitting Generic Appeal Templates

Amazon enforcement decisions arise from different factual circumstances. A response designed for an authenticity complaint may be inappropriate for an intellectual property, restricted-products, or Seller Code of Conduct case.

4. Admitting to Conduct Without Understanding the Notice

Sellers should carefully determine what Amazon is alleging before accepting responsibility for a violation that may be incorrect.

5. Sending Irrelevant Documents

More documentation is not necessarily better. Documents should address Amazon's concern and satisfy the requirements of the particular review.

6. Altering or Fabricating Documents

Never alter invoices, manufacture evidence, or provide false information to Amazon. Doing so can create substantially more serious account problems.

7. Filing Multiple Contradictory Appeals

Repeated responses containing inconsistent explanations can undermine credibility and complicate future appeals.

8. Waiting Until the AHR Falls Below 100

An Account Health warning is an opportunity to act before the account becomes eligible for deactivation. Sellers should use it.

How Can Amazon Sellers Prevent Account Deactivation in 2026?

The best strategy is proactive Account Health management.

Amazon sellers should develop a repeatable compliance process rather than waiting for a suspension.

1. Review Account Health regularly. High-volume sellers should make this part of routine operations.
2. Investigate every new violation promptly. Determine whether the issue is genuine or incorrect.
3. Prioritize critical and high-impact violations.
4. Keep supplier records organized.
5. Preserve invoices and authorization documents.
6. Verify restricted-product rules before listing.
7. Monitor intellectual property complaints.
8. Audit listings for potentially prohibited claims.
9. Control employee and contractor access to Seller Central.
10. Maintain accurate business and identity information.
11. Investigate recurring customer complaints.
12. Document corrective action.
13. Keep your emergency contact information current.
14. Work toward an AHR above 250 when eligible for Account Health Assurance.
15. Get help with serious violations before an account-wide deactivation occurs.

What Documents Should Amazon Sellers Keep for Account Health Problems?

The exact evidence needed depends on the type of violation, but sellers should consider maintaining organized records including:

• commercial invoices;
• supplier contact information;
• purchase orders;
• payment records;
• letters of authorization;
• distribution agreements;
• trademark records;
• licensing agreements;
• product photographs;
• packaging photographs;
• product safety testing;
• certificates of conformity;
• regulatory documentation;
• shipping records;
• manufacturer information; and
• communications relevant to a complaint or enforcement action.

Do not create documents after the fact in an attempt to make an unsupported supply chain appear legitimate. Documentation submitted to Amazon should be authentic, accurate, and responsive to the issue being reviewed.

What Should an Amazon Account Health Appeal Include?

A strong Amazon appeal should directly address the reason for the enforcement action and provide the information Amazon actually needs to evaluate the account.

Depending on the circumstances, the appeal may need to explain:

• what occurred;
• whether Amazon's allegation is disputed;
• the root cause of a genuine violation;
• the corrective action already taken;
• the preventive measures implemented;
• why the violation should be removed;
• how products were sourced;
• why the seller is authorized to sell the products;
• why the listing complies with Amazon policy; and
• what documentary evidence supports the response.

Not every Amazon appeal should contain the same sections. The appropriate response depends on the enforcement notice and facts of the case.

If your Amazon account is at risk, suspended, or deactivated, learn more about our Amazon appeal services for sellers.

Should I Appeal an Amazon Violation If Amazon Is Wrong?

Yes, when Amazon provides an appeal process and the enforcement action is incorrect, sellers should consider challenging the violation with relevant evidence rather than admitting to conduct that did not occur.

This distinction can be particularly important in cases involving:

• false intellectual property complaints;
• incorrect authenticity allegations;
• misidentified restricted products;
• incorrect product-condition complaints;
• incorrectly associated listings;
• incorrect compliance determinations; or
• other mistaken enforcement actions.

A factual challenge should explain why Amazon's conclusion is incorrect and provide evidence supporting the seller's position.

Should I Use an Amazon Appeal Template?

Generic Amazon appeal templates can be risky when they are used without adapting them to the actual violation.

Amazon does not deactivate every account for the same reason, so there is no single appeal format that is appropriate for every case.

The strongest response is usually one tailored to:

• the exact performance notification;
• the Amazon policy involved;
• the seller's actual conduct;
• the supporting evidence;
• previous communications with Amazon; and
• the remedy Amazon is requesting.

Submitting an inaccurate template simply because it worked for another seller can create unnecessary admissions or fail to answer Amazon's concern.

What Happens If Amazon Deactivates My Seller Account?

An Amazon seller account deactivation can affect far more than the ability to create new listings.

Depending on the circumstances, sellers may face:

• loss of selling privileges;
• listing removal;
• interruption of sales;
• inventory complications;
• delayed access to funds;
• advertising disruption;
• difficulty operating in related marketplaces; and
• additional verification or appeal requirements.

The correct response depends on the reason Amazon gives for deactivation.

Sellers should read every Performance Notification and Account Health communication carefully before submitting an appeal.

How Can AMZ Sellers Attorney® Help With Amazon Account Health Problems?

AMZ Sellers Attorney® assists Amazon sellers facing account suspensions, deactivations, policy violations, intellectual property complaints, authenticity disputes, and other Amazon-related enforcement issues.

When a seller faces a serious Account Health problem, the objective should not merely be to send Amazon more text. The objective is to identify the actual enforcement issue, determine what Amazon is requesting, evaluate the available evidence, and prepare an appropriate response based on the facts.

If your AHR is declining, your account has been placed at risk, or Amazon has already deactivated your seller account, visit our Amazon Appeals page to learn more about assistance with Amazon suspension and deactivation matters.

Amazon Account Health Rating FAQ

What does AHR mean on Amazon?

AHR means Account Health Rating. It is Amazon's numerical indicator designed to help sellers understand policy compliance and the risk that unresolved violations may lead to account deactivation.

What is a good Amazon AHR score?

An AHR of 200 or higher is generally considered healthy. Sellers should still address policy violations even when the account remains in the healthy range.

Is an Amazon AHR of 200 safe?

An AHR of 200 is within Amazon's healthy range, but it does not guarantee that the account cannot be deactivated. Serious conduct can result in enforcement regardless of the numerical AHR.

What happens when Amazon AHR falls below 200?

An AHR below 200 can place the account in Amazon's "At Risk" range. Sellers should promptly identify and address unresolved policy violations.

What happens when Amazon AHR falls below 100?

An AHR below 100 can make an Amazon selling account eligible for deactivation. Sellers in this range should treat unresolved policy violations as urgent.

Can Amazon deactivate an account with an AHR above 200?

Yes. A healthy AHR does not prevent Amazon from taking enforcement action for serious violations, suspected fraud, deceptive or illegal activity, customer-safety concerns, or other conduct Amazon believes warrants immediate action.

Does deleting an ASIN remove an Amazon Account Health violation?

No. Closing or deleting the affected listing does not automatically resolve the underlying policy violation. The violation may still need to be addressed through Account Health.

How can I improve my Amazon Account Health Rating?

Sellers can improve Account Health by resolving applicable policy violations, successfully appealing incorrect violations, correcting noncompliant listings, providing required documentation, and maintaining ongoing compliance with Amazon policies.

How quickly does AHR increase after a violation is removed?

Amazon has indicated that once it confirms a policy violation has been successfully addressed, the Account Health Rating may update within approximately 24 to 48 hours.

Why did my Amazon AHR drop?

An AHR may decline because of unresolved policy violations, the severity of violations, and changes in activity considered by Amazon's Account Health system. Review the Account Health page and recent Performance Notifications to identify the cause.

Can one policy violation suspend an Amazon account?

Yes. One sufficiently serious violation can potentially result in account-level action. The severity of the alleged conduct may matter more than the total number of violations.

What is Amazon Account Health Assurance?

Account Health Assurance is an Amazon program for qualifying Professional sellers that provides additional protection against certain account deactivations while the seller works with Amazon to resolve the qualifying issue.

What AHR do I need for Account Health Assurance?

Amazon's published eligibility guidance states that qualifying Professional sellers generally need to maintain an AHR of 250 or higher for at least six months, with no more than 10 days below 250 during that period, as well as meet Amazon's other current program requirements.

How long do I have to respond under Account Health Assurance?

Amazon states that qualifying sellers contacted about an Account Health Assurance issue generally need to respond within 72 hours and cooperate in resolving the issue.

Does Account Health Assurance prevent every Amazon suspension?

No. Serious policy violations and activity Amazon considers fraudulent, deceptive, illegal, or harmful may still lead to immediate enforcement.

Should I appeal an incorrect Account Health violation?

If Amazon provides an appeal option and the violation is incorrect, sellers should consider challenging the enforcement with accurate facts and relevant supporting documentation rather than admitting to conduct that did not occur.

Can I use the same appeal for every Amazon Account Health violation?

No. Different violations require different responses and supporting evidence. An intellectual property complaint, authenticity complaint, restricted-products violation, and Seller Code of Conduct violation should not automatically receive the same appeal.

Where can I get help with an Amazon account deactivation appeal?

Amazon sellers facing suspension, deactivation, or serious Account Health violations can learn more about assistance from AMZ Sellers Attorney® on our Amazon account appeals page.

Key Takeaways for Amazon Sellers in 2026

• 200 or higher is generally a healthy Amazon Account Health Rating.
• Below 200 can place an Amazon account at risk of deactivation.
• Below 100 can make an account eligible for deactivation.
• A healthy AHR does not guarantee immunity from Amazon enforcement.
• Deleting a listing does not automatically remove the associated Account Health violation.
• Serious policy violations should be addressed immediately.
• Generic Amazon appeal templates can create additional problems when they do not match the violation.
• Professional sellers should consider maintaining an AHR above 250 to work toward Account Health Assurance eligibility.
• Documentation should be authentic, organized, and relevant to Amazon's concern.
• Proactive Account Health management is usually safer than waiting for an account-wide deactivation.

Need Help With an Amazon Account Health Violation or Deactivation?

If Amazon has warned that your account is at risk, your Account Health Rating has fallen significantly, or your seller account has already been suspended or deactivated, the response you submit can be critical.

AMZ Sellers Attorney® assists sellers with Amazon suspension and deactivation matters, Account Health violations, authenticity disputes, intellectual property complaints, and other seller enforcement issues.

Learn more about Amazon account suspension and deactivation appeals from AMZ Sellers Attorney®.

Amazon policies, Account Health requirements, scoring systems, and program eligibility criteria can change. Sellers should verify current requirements in Seller Central. This article is provided for general informational purposes and should not be interpreted as a guarantee of any particular Amazon enforcement or appeal outcome.

Amazon BSA · Arbitration · Seller Finance

Twelve Days to August 24: The BSA Amendment That Reaches Your Lender, Your Buyer, and Your Frozen Funds

By Kenneth G. Eade, Esq. — California State Bar No. 93774, practicing since 1980 · AMZ Sellers Attorney®, Beverly Hills · Published August 12, 2026

12 Days until the amended BSA takes effect

Amazon updated the Business Solutions Agreement on May 29, 2026. Effective August 24, 2026, a seller may not transfer its rights or obligations under the agreement, and may not pledge them as collateral.

Quick answer: The August 24, 2026 BSA amendment does two things. It broadens the transfer prohibition from the agreement itself to the rights and obligations under it, and it names pledging as a separately prohibited act. That reaches account sales, certain aggregator structures, and any credit facility secured by Amazon disbursements. It does not reach a claim that has already accrued for money Amazon is currently holding — and there is a substantial argument under UCC Article 9, as adopted in Washington, that the pledge prohibition is ineffective against a secured lender in the first place.

Most of the coverage of this amendment has come from agencies and operators, and it has been competent operational coverage: audit your financing documents, confirm your registered entity, do it before the twenty-fourth. That advice is correct. But it stops at the point where the interesting question begins, which is whether the new language actually does what it says it does.

Three separate legal questions are stacked inside one sentence of contract text. Sellers, lenders, and acquirers are all being told to restructure around it, and at least one of those questions has an answer that cuts the other way.

What Actually Changed

The prior version of the BSA restricted assignment of the agreement without Amazon's written consent, with a narrow affiliate carve-out. Practitioners and sellers alike read that as a restriction on handing the contract itself to someone else.

The amendment tightens it in two directions. First, scope: the prohibition now reaches a transfer of a seller's rights or obligations under the agreement, not merely the agreement as a document. Structures that formally left the BSA in place while moving the economics or operational control elsewhere now sit inside the prohibition rather than beside it. Second, pledging: the updated language expressly prohibits pledging those rights as collateral. A seller's right to receive Amazon disbursements is unmistakably a right under the agreement. On a plain reading, granting a lender a security interest in it is exactly what the amended text forbids.

Amazon announced this on May 29 with almost a three-month runway. That timing signals an expectation that parties will restructure. It is a window, not a trap.

Why This Lands Hard in the Second Week of August

The calendar is the whole problem. Right now, in the first half of August, sellers doing meaningful volume are buying Q4 inventory. A significant share of that purchasing is financed, and a significant share of that financing is secured, in whole or in part, by future Amazon disbursements — revenue-based facilities, merchant cash advances, inventory lines with a lockbox or sweep arrangement over the settlement account.

Twelve days from now, the contract those businesses operate under says that structure is not permitted. The purchase orders are already placed. That is the practical squeeze, and it is why the enforceability question is not academic.

Revenue-based lenders and MCA borrowers

Any facility with a security interest, assignment, or sweep over Amazon settlement proceeds. Highest exposure, shortest runway.

Sellers mid-LOI with an aggregator

Deal structures that contemplate transferring the seller account or the rights under it, rather than a clean asset purchase operated on the buyer's own account.

Entity-mismatch accounts

Where the registered operator on the account is not the entity actually running it — historically a suspension and fund-hold trigger independent of this amendment.

Sellers with funds already frozen

Unaffected by the amendment, but now with one fewer route to monetize the receivable. See the Section 2 discussion below.

Is the Pledge Prohibition Even Enforceable?

This is the question nobody is asking, and it has real teeth.

The BSA is governed by Washington law, which means Washington's enactment of UCC Article 9 applies to security interests arising under it. RCW 62A.9A-406(d) makes ineffective a term in an agreement between an account debtor and an assignor that prohibits, restricts, or requires consent to the assignment or creation of a security interest in an account or a payment intangible. The same subsection independently makes ineffective a term providing that such an assignment or security interest constitutes a default, a breach, or a ground for termination or other remedy.

Read that second prong again in light of what Amazon just drafted. Article 9 anticipated precisely this move. The policy behind section 9A-406 is that account debtors should not be able to render their obligors' receivables unfinanceable by contract, because the availability of receivables financing is a public good the Code protects deliberately.

Two threshold questions have to go the seller's way. Is a seller's right to Amazon disbursements an "account" or a "payment intangible"? A payment intangible is a general intangible under which the account debtor's principal obligation is monetary, which describes the disbursement right well. And is Amazon an "account debtor" as to that obligation? Amazon owes the money; that is the substance of the relationship, whatever the mechanics of collection from the end buyer.

The honest caveat

RCW 62A.9A-408 extends similar treatment to categories that section 9A-406 does not reach, but subsection (d) sharply limits the practical consequence: even where the restrictive term is ineffective, the account debtor is not obligated to recognize the assignee, is not required to pay the assignee directly, and does not otherwise have its obligations altered. The realistic outcome is therefore split. A lender's security interest can attach and be enforceable as between lender and seller notwithstanding the BSA language, while Amazon retains no duty to route a single dollar to that lender. That is a meaningful protection for the lender's collateral position and no protection at all against Amazon's operational response.

No arbitrator or court has applied this analysis to this specific language. It is an argument, and a strong one, not a settled answer. No seller should leave a facility unrestructured on the strength of a blog post, including this one. But any lender being asked to release its lien over Amazon proceeds before August 24 should at least know the argument exists before it gives up its collateral.

An Accrued Claim Is a Different Asset

Here is the distinction that matters most for sellers already in a dispute, and it is a distinction courts have drawn for a very long time.

Assigning a contract is different from assigning a claim for money already due under it. The first delegates performance and changes who the obligor must deal with; that is what anti-assignment clauses exist to prevent. The second changes nothing about what the obligor owes or does — it changes only who receives the check. Courts construe anti-assignment language narrowly and disfavor readings that work a forfeiture, and a matured arbitration award is, in substance, a money judgment that is ordinarily assignable regardless of what the underlying contract said about assigning the contract.

The amended BSA speaks to rights and obligations under the agreement. A seller's accrued claim for proceeds Amazon is already holding is better characterized as a chose in action that arose under the agreement than as an ongoing right under it. That is not a semantic point. It determines whether a seller with a frozen balance and a strong claim retains an asset that can be assigned, funded, or carried into a transaction — or whether that door closed on August 24 along with the others.

The Section 2 Collision

Now put the two halves together, because this is where the amendment gets genuinely uncomfortable for sellers.

Section 2 of the BSA is the permanent funds-withholding provision Amazon invokes to retain a seller's net proceeds after suspension or termination for an alleged policy violation. Independent arbitrators in Washington, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and New York have concluded that the clause operates as an unenforceable penalty rather than a valid liquidated-damages provision, and have ordered the money returned.

Most recently, on August 5, 2026, AAA Arbitrator Theodore P. Pearce issued a Final Award striking Section 2 as an unenforceable penalty under Washington law, severing it under the BSA's own severability provision, and ordering release of the seller's withheld proceeds together with mandatory prejudgment interest at 12 percent under RCW 19.52.010, with 70 percent of AAA administrative fees and arbitrator compensation allocated to Amazon. The same award separately rejected Amazon's fallback position that seller compliance operates as a condition precedent to payment, holding that the disbursement provisions contain none of the conditional language Washington law requires. Compliance is a promise, not a condition — so an alleged breach gives Amazon a damages claim it must plead and prove, not a self-executing right to keep the money.

The combined picture: Amazon reserves a contractual right to hold a seller's proceeds indefinitely on a policy allegation. As of August 24, that same seller may not pledge the receivable to a lender, may not transfer it with the business, and may not assign the underlying rights. For a seller whose funds are already frozen, arbitration is now the primary remaining mechanism for converting that balance back into cash. Sellers should know that arbitrators have repeatedly declined to enforce the clause Amazon relies on to justify the hold.

The awards are non-precedential standing alone; AAA and ICDR awards do not bind future arbitrators the way appellate opinions bind trial courts. But the pattern is now the working foundation of most frozen-funds claims under the agreement. Full detail on the claim structure, the penalty doctrine, the condition precedent holding, and the fee arrangements available is on our Amazon arbitration practice page.

What to Do in the Next Twelve Days

1. Pull every financing document this week. Look for security agreements, assignments, UCC-1 filings, lockbox or sweep arrangements, and covenants that reference Amazon settlement proceeds. You are identifying exposure, not solving it yet.
2. Have counsel assess whether Article 9 covers the structure. If the collateral is properly characterized as an account or payment intangible under Washington law, the calculus for whether to restructure, and on what terms, changes materially. Bring your lender into that conversation rather than around it.
3. Confirm the registered operator matches reality. Entity mismatch between the account of record and the entity actually operating has been a suspension and fund-hold trigger for years, entirely apart from this amendment. Document any corporate change through Seller Central's compliance process.
4. Revisit any live transaction structure. If a sale or investment is in diligence, an asset purchase operated on the buyer's own registered account avoids the prohibition in a way an account transfer does not. Restructure now, not at closing.
5. Evaluate a frozen-funds claim on its own timeline. If Amazon is already holding money, that claim neither strengthens nor weakens on August 24 — but every other route to monetizing the balance narrows. Start here if funds are withheld.

Related reading

• Amazon's August 24, 2026 BSA change: transfer and pledging rules for account sales, aggregator deals, and revenue-based lending
• Is Amazon allowed to withhold funds? Laws and seller rights
• Amazon BSA legal rights: what sellers can enforce
• When to file Amazon arbitration: a seller decision guide
• How to force Amazon to pay you: recovering frozen funds

Frequently Asked Questions

What changed in the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement on August 24, 2026?

Amazon updated the BSA on May 29, 2026, with changes effective August 24, 2026, prohibiting a seller from transferring its rights or obligations under the agreement and from pledging those rights as collateral. The prior version restricted transfer of the agreement itself absent Amazon's written consent. Two things changed: the prohibition now reaches rights and obligations rather than only the agreement as a document, and pledging is named as a separately prohibited act rather than left to inference.

Can I still pledge my Amazon receivables to a lender after August 24, 2026?

On the face of the amended agreement, no — but whether that prohibition is legally effective against a secured lender is a separate question. Under UCC Article 9 as adopted in Washington, a contract term prohibiting or restricting creation of a security interest in an account or payment intangible is ineffective to the extent stated in RCW 62A.9A-406 and RCW 62A.9A-408. A seller's right to receive Amazon disbursements is a strong candidate for that treatment. No court or arbitrator has yet applied that analysis to this specific language, so treat it as an available argument rather than a settled answer, and do not restructure — or decline to restructure — a credit facility on that basis without counsel.

Does the new BSA language stop me from selling my Amazon business?

It affects how the sale is structured rather than whether a sale can happen. Transferring the seller account itself, or transferring rights and obligations under the agreement, now falls squarely inside the prohibition. Asset sales in which the buyer acquires the brand, intellectual property, supplier relationships, and inventory, then operates through the buyer's own registered account, do not depend on transferring the agreement. Corporate changes should be documented through Seller Central's compliance process, and the registered operator should match the entity actually running the account.

Does the anti-transfer clause block assignment of an arbitration claim or an award against Amazon?

Most likely not, though the point has not been tested against this language. Courts generally construe anti-assignment clauses narrowly and distinguish assigning the contract, which delegates performance, from assigning a claim for money already due, which does not change what the obligor must do. A matured arbitration award is a money judgment in substance and is ordinarily assignable. The amended language addresses rights and obligations under the agreement; an accrued claim for funds Amazon already holds is better characterized as a chose in action that arose under the agreement. The distinction matters commercially, because litigation funders and claim purchasers price accrued claims differently from operating businesses.

Is Amazon's pledge prohibition enforceable under UCC Article 9?

There is a serious argument that it is not, at least in part. RCW 62A.9A-406(d) makes ineffective a term between an account debtor and an assignor that prohibits, restricts, or requires consent to assignment or creation of a security interest in an account or payment intangible, and independently makes ineffective a term providing that such an assignment is a default, breach, or ground for termination. RCW 62A.9A-408 reaches further categories with more limited effect. The critical caveat is section 9A-408(d): even where the restrictive term is ineffective, the account debtor is not required to recognize the assignee or pay it directly. The realistic result is a split outcome — the lender's security interest may attach and be enforceable notwithstanding the BSA language, while Amazon retains no obligation to route payments to the lender.

What happens if Amazon learns my Amazon revenue is pledged to a lender?

Amazon's enforcement posture for mismatches between the registered operator and the entity actually controlling an account has historically included suspension and fund holds. A seller facing that outcome is in the same position as any other seller with a frozen balance: the appeal path runs through Seller Central, and the recovery path for money Amazon is holding runs through AAA or ICDR arbitration under the agreement. The Article 9 argument may protect the lender's security interest, but it does not prevent Amazon from taking account-level action — which is why financing structures should be addressed before the effective date rather than after an enforcement event.

If Amazon is already holding my funds, does the August 24 change affect my arbitration claim?

No. The amendment governs transfer and pledging; it does not alter the arbitration clause, the disbursement obligations, or the ability to bring a claim for funds already withheld. On August 5, 2026, an AAA arbitrator issued a Final Award striking Section 2 of the agreement as an unenforceable penalty under Washington law, ordering release of the seller's withheld proceeds with mandatory prejudgment interest at 12 percent under RCW 19.52.010, allocating 70 percent of forum fees to Amazon, and separately rejecting Amazon's argument that seller compliance operates as a condition precedent to payment. That claim path is unaffected by the August 24 change. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

What should an Amazon seller do before August 24, 2026?

Pull every financing document and identify any security interest, assignment, lockbox arrangement, or covenant touching Amazon disbursements, then have counsel review whether the structure needs to change or whether the Article 9 argument covers it. Confirm the entity registered on the account is the entity operating it, and document any corporate change through Seller Central. If a sale or investment is in diligence, revisit the structure now rather than at closing. And if Amazon is already holding funds, evaluate an arbitration claim on its own timeline — that claim does not become weaker or stronger on August 24.

Amazon Holding Your Funds? Twelve Days Does Not Change That Claim.

AMZ Sellers Attorney® represents sellers in AAA and ICDR arbitration against Amazon for frozen balances, withheld payouts, Section 3 termination damages, and FBA inventory losses. Contingency and hybrid terms available for qualifying matters over $300,000 in controversy.

Get a Free Case Evaluation

Attorney Advertising. This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship; no such relationship is formed until a written engagement agreement is signed. The analysis of RCW 62A.9A-406, RCW 62A.9A-408, and the assignability of accrued claims reflects arguments available under Washington law that have not been tested against this specific contract language, and should not be relied upon in deciding whether to maintain, modify, or terminate any credit facility or transaction. Every matter depends on its own facts, the governing version of the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement, applicable law, and the decision of the arbitrator or court. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Written by Kenneth G. Eade, Esq.. AMZ Sellers Attorney® is the registered mark of Amazon Sellers Attorney, Ltd., 9350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Contact: [email protected] · +1 888 806 2440. Published August 12, 2026.

Amazon Seller Account Deactivated? 11 Reasons Amazon Is Suspending Sellers in 2026 — and How to Get Reinstated

Updated August 11, 2026 | Attorney-Reviewed Amazon Seller Suspension Guide

If your Amazon seller account was deactivated, the first question is not simply, "How do I appeal?" The more important question is: Why did Amazon deactivate the account?

Amazon seller accounts can be deactivated for very different reasons, including Section 3 concerns, related accounts, product authenticity complaints, intellectual property violations, identity verification failures, dropshipping violations, restricted products, review manipulation, poor account health, INFORM Consumers Act verification problems, and other Seller Code of Conduct concerns.

Each type of Amazon suspension requires a different response. An appeal for an authenticity complaint should not look like an appeal for a related-account suspension. A Section 3 investigation can require a different evidentiary strategy from a performance-metric suspension. An intellectual property complaint can involve legal issues that cannot be solved by simply submitting a generic Plan of Action.

If Amazon has already deactivated your account, or if your previous appeals have been rejected, AMZ Sellers Attorney® provides attorney-supervised Amazon suspension appeal and account reinstatement services for sellers facing complex enforcement actions.

Quick Answer: How Do You Reinstate a Deactivated Amazon Seller Account?

To reinstate a deactivated Amazon seller account, first identify the exact reason Amazon gives for the enforcement action. Review the Performance Notification carefully, determine the root cause, complete the necessary corrective actions, collect supporting evidence, and submit the appeal or Plan of Action Amazon requests.

A strong Amazon reinstatement submission should normally answer four questions:

1. What happened?
2. What caused the problem?
3. What have you already done to correct it?
4. What specific controls will prevent it from happening again?

Depending on the case, Amazon may also expect invoices, supplier records, identity documents, business records, authorization letters, proof concerning another seller account, fulfillment records, or other evidence.

Do not repeatedly submit slightly rewritten versions of an appeal Amazon has already rejected. If an appeal fails, determine why it failed before submitting another one.

Table of Contents

• Why Amazon Deactivates Seller Accounts
• 1. Amazon Section 3 Deactivation
• 2. Amazon Related Account Suspension
• 3. Product Authenticity and Inauthentic Complaints
• 4. Intellectual Property Complaints
• 5. Identity and Business Verification Failures
• 6. Amazon Video Verification Problems
• 7. Dropshipping Policy Violations
• 8. Restricted Products and Product Compliance
• 9. Review Manipulation and Seller Code of Conduct
• 10. Poor Account Health and Performance Metrics
• 11. INFORM Consumers Act Verification
• What to Do After Amazon Deactivates Your Account
• What an Amazon Plan of Action Should Include
• What to Do If Amazon Rejects Your Appeal
• What Happens to Your Money After Deactivation?
• Should You Hire an Amazon Seller Attorney?
• Amazon Seller Account Deactivation FAQ

Why Does Amazon Deactivate Seller Accounts?

Amazon may deactivate a seller account when its systems or investigators conclude that a seller may present a risk to customers, marketplace integrity, Amazon's policies, or the integrity of the selling account.

The exact language in Amazon's Performance Notification matters.

An "inauthentic" complaint creates a different evidentiary problem from a related-account deactivation. A Section 3 investigation is different from a straightforward late-shipment problem. An intellectual property complaint may require involvement from the rights owner. A verification suspension can hinge on inconsistencies between business records and Seller Central information.

That leads to one of the most important rules for suspended Amazon sellers:

Do not write your Amazon appeal until you understand the allegation you are appealing.

For a broader explanation of suspension triggers, sellers can also review AMZ Sellers Attorney®'s guide explaining why Amazon suspends seller accounts.

1. Amazon Section 3 Deactivation

What is an Amazon Section 3 suspension?

A Section 3 deactivation generally refers to enforcement connected with Section 3 of Amazon's Business Solutions Agreement. These cases may involve concerns regarding account integrity, verification, transactions, authenticity, marketplace risk, manipulation, or other circumstances Amazon believes justify enforcement.

Section 3 cases can be particularly difficult because the deactivation notice does not always provide the level of detail a seller wants before being asked to respond.

A seller may know that Amazon has identified a risk without fully understanding which transaction, relationship, document, product, supplier, or account activity triggered the review.

How should you respond to a Section 3 deactivation?

Start by preserving and reviewing everything connected to the account, including:

• The complete Performance Notification
• Previous communications with Amazon
• Invoices and supplier records
• Account ownership information
• Bank and payment information relevant to verification
• Fulfillment records
• Affected ASINs
• Account access information
• Previous appeals
• Documents Amazon specifically requested

Do not assume every Section 3 suspension requires the same Plan of Action. The correct strategy depends on the underlying concern.

If you are facing a Section 3 deactivation, AMZ Sellers Attorney® can review the notice, evidence and previous appeal history through its Amazon seller suspension appeals service.

2. Amazon Related Account Suspension

Why does Amazon say my seller account is related to another account?

Amazon may deactivate a seller account when it determines that the account is connected to another selling account with unresolved enforcement problems.

This is often one of the most confusing forms of Amazon account suspension because some sellers do not recognize the other account Amazon identifies.

Potential connections can arise from business relationships, account access, employees, former employees, family members, service providers, ownership history, shared addresses, financial information, devices, networks, or other overlapping account information.

The existence of some overlap does not by itself explain why Amazon concluded that the accounts should be treated as related.

What should you do if you recognize the related account?

Determine:

1. Who owns the other account?
2. Why are the accounts connected?
3. What legitimate business relationship exists?
4. Why was the other account deactivated?
5. Can the underlying problem with that account be resolved?

Simply telling Amazon, "These businesses are separate," may not resolve the issue. A related-account appeal generally needs verifiable facts explaining the relationship and addressing Amazon's concern.

What if you do not recognize the related account?

Do not invent a story to explain the connection.

Review who has had access to your Seller Central account, former business relationships, contractors, employees, service providers, ownership changes and other circumstances that could legitimately explain a connection.

AMZ Sellers Attorney® maintains a dedicated guide to Amazon related account suspension appeals as well as an explanation of how Amazon flags related seller accounts.

3. Product Authenticity and Inauthentic Item Complaints

Can Amazon suspend an account for an authenticity complaint?

Yes. Product authenticity concerns can lead to listing removal and, depending on the circumstances, broader account-level enforcement.

These cases frequently become documentation and supply-chain cases.

Amazon may expect the seller to demonstrate where inventory came from and whether the supply chain can be verified.

Why does Amazon reject invoices?

Potential problems include invoices that:

• Do not adequately identify the supplier
• Do not correspond with the seller's legal or account information
• Do not cover the products or quantities under review
• Contain inconsistent information
• Cannot be independently verified
• Do not adequately establish the relevant supply chain
• Do not satisfy the specific documentation Amazon requested

Never alter or fabricate an invoice.

Submitting manipulated documentation can turn a potentially solvable authenticity complaint into a much more serious account-integrity issue.

What makes a strong authenticity appeal?

The objective is not merely to state, "My products are authentic."

A stronger response identifies the source of the inventory, explains the supplier relationship, connects relevant transactions to the products Amazon is reviewing, supplies the requested records, addresses any sourcing weakness and explains what controls are now used to evaluate suppliers.

Sellers facing these allegations can review AMZ Sellers Attorney®'s guide to Amazon inauthentic seller account suspensions.

4. Intellectual Property Complaints

Amazon sellers may face trademark, copyright, patent, counterfeit and other intellectual property complaints.

Can an intellectual property complaint deactivate an Amazon account?

Potentially. An IP complaint may initially affect an individual ASIN or listing, but repeated, unresolved or serious intellectual property problems can create broader account-health consequences.

IP cases deserve particular care because there can be two disputes occurring at the same time:

• The Amazon marketplace enforcement action
• The underlying legal dispute with the intellectual property owner

A standard Plan of Action may not resolve a complaint when Amazon expects a retraction, authorization, legal explanation or other evidence addressing the rights owner's allegation.

Should you contact the rights owner?

Sometimes, but first determine exactly what the complaint alleges.

A trademark complaint may require a different analysis from copyright or patent infringement. Sellers should also be careful about making unnecessary factual or legal admissions when communicating with a complainant.

For more information, read the AMZ Sellers Attorney® Amazon intellectual property complaint guide.

5. Identity and Business Verification Failures

Why is Amazon asking me to verify my identity?

Amazon verifies seller identities, businesses and account information as part of its marketplace compliance and risk-control processes.

Verification problems may occur when submitted information does not match the information associated with the seller account or cannot otherwise be verified.

Potential inconsistencies can involve:

• Legal name
• Business name
• Business address
• Beneficial ownership
• Government identification
• Bank information
• Business registration information
• Seller Central information

What should you do if Amazon verification fails?

Do not simply upload the same rejected document over and over.

Compare the information across each document and against the information shown in Seller Central.

For example, if one record identifies a company using its complete legal name while another document uses an individual name or outdated business address, determine whether that discrepancy is creating the problem.

When Amazon requests a specific document or format, follow the request carefully. Verification disputes are often heavily dependent on consistency and documentation.

6. Amazon Video Verification Problems

What happens during Amazon video verification?

Amazon can require sellers to participate in identity or business verification procedures that include a video interview.

The precise process can vary, but a seller should be prepared to verify identity, business ownership and information relevant to Amazon's review.

Before participating in a verification appointment, review:

• Your Seller Central account information
• Government-issued identification
• Company formation records
• Business addresses
• Bank information
• Supplier information
• Relevant invoices
• Inventory sourcing
• Account ownership
• The reason Amazon requested verification

What is one of the biggest video verification risks?

Inconsistency.

If statements made during an interview conflict with Seller Central information or documents previously supplied to Amazon, the inconsistency can create further questions.

Answer questions truthfully. If you genuinely do not know something, avoid guessing merely because you believe Amazon expects an immediate answer.

7. Dropshipping Policy Violations

Does Amazon allow dropshipping?

Amazon permits certain forms of dropshipping when its requirements are satisfied, including requirements concerning who is identified as the seller of record.

Problems frequently arise when fulfillment causes another retailer or supplier to appear to the customer as the seller instead of the Amazon merchant responsible for the transaction.

This can involve third-party packing slips, invoices, packaging or other materials identifying another retailer.

How do you appeal an Amazon dropshipping suspension?

First identify the actual fulfillment failure. Then show Amazon what changed.

Corrective and preventive actions might include:

• Replacing noncompliant suppliers
• Changing fulfillment procedures
• Prohibiting noncompliant retail-to-customer fulfillment
• Implementing supplier agreements
• Auditing packaging and packing slips
• Training employees
• Monitoring fulfillment compliance
• Using FBA, compliant wholesalers or appropriate third-party logistics providers

"We will be more careful" is not a compliance system.

The appeal should explain the operational control that changed.

For sellers suspended on this basis, see AMZ Sellers Attorney®'s dedicated Amazon dropshipping suspension appeal service.

8. Restricted Products and Product Compliance

Can selling a restricted product get an Amazon account suspended?

Yes. Amazon restricts or prohibits certain products and may impose documentation, safety, labeling or compliance requirements for others.

A seller can face marketplace enforcement even when the seller believes a product may legally be sold through another sales channel. Amazon marketplace eligibility and general legality are not necessarily identical questions.

Restricted-product issues can involve:

• Category restrictions
• Safety requirements
• Product labeling
• Certifications
• Testing requirements
• Ingredients
• Hazardous materials
• Claims made in product listings
• Age restrictions
• Marketplace-specific requirements

How can sellers reduce restricted-product suspension risk?

Compliance should be evaluated before a product is listed, not after Amazon issues a violation.

For products with elevated compliance risks, maintain documentation such as supplier records, test reports, certificates, labeling information and other evidence that may be needed if Amazon later questions the listing.

9. Review Manipulation and Seller Code of Conduct Violations

Amazon treats attempts to manipulate reviews, rankings, customer interactions or marketplace systems seriously.

What can Amazon consider review manipulation?

Potential problems can involve improperly incentivized reviews, attempts to influence review sentiment, prohibited coordination or the use of third-party services that do not comply with Amazon's policies.

Third-party marketing providers can create significant risk.

A seller may hire an agency expecting legitimate marketing services only to later discover that the provider used methods Amazon prohibits.

Is saying "my agency did it" enough?

Usually, blaming a third party does not explain how the seller will prevent the problem from happening again.

An effective response may need to address:

• What the provider did
• How the activity occurred
• When it was discovered
• Whether the relationship was terminated
• Whether access was revoked
• What activity was audited
• How new service providers will be reviewed

The preventive measure is not simply firing one provider. The stronger question is how the seller's vendor-control process changed.

10. Poor Account Health and Performance Metrics

Not every Amazon suspension involves authenticity, fraud or account verification.

Amazon also expects sellers to maintain required performance standards.

What performance problems can lead to Amazon enforcement?

Depending on the account and fulfillment model, enforcement can involve patterns associated with:

• Order defects
• Late shipments
• Pre-fulfillment cancellations
• Customer claims
• Chargebacks
• Fulfillment failures
• Repeated policy violations

The correct appeal should identify the operational cause of the performance problem.

For example, late shipment caused by inaccurate inventory synchronization requires a different corrective measure from late shipment caused by warehouse staffing or carrier cutoff problems.

"We experienced shipping problems" is not a meaningful root-cause analysis.

Explain what failed and what system changed.

11. INFORM Consumers Act and Seller Information Verification

The INFORM Consumers Act created federal verification and disclosure requirements affecting certain high-volume third-party marketplace sellers.

Amazon may request information needed to complete applicable seller-verification requirements.

Can seller verification problems lead to account deactivation?

Failure to complete required verification or resolve inconsistencies can interfere with a seller's ability to continue selling.

Sellers should therefore keep core information current and consistent across:

• Seller Central
• Government identification
• Business registration records
• Tax information
• Bank information
• Contact information

Do not wait until Amazon imposes a deadline to discover that your corporate records, bank information and Seller Central profile contain different addresses or outdated ownership information.

My Amazon Seller Account Was Deactivated. What Should I Do First?

If you just received a deactivation notice, avoid sending an emotional or rushed appeal.

Step 1: Save the complete deactivation notice

Preserve the entire Performance Notification. The exact wording Amazon uses can determine the appropriate response.

Step 2: Identify the actual allegation

Determine whether the issue involves Section 3, related accounts, authenticity, intellectual property, verification, dropshipping, restricted products, review manipulation, account health or another policy.

Step 3: Stop the underlying problem

Whenever possible, complete corrective actions before submitting the appeal.

An appeal saying that you intend to investigate an issue is generally less persuasive than one explaining what you investigated, what you discovered and what you already corrected.

Step 4: Gather supporting evidence

Depending on the case, evidence might include:

• Invoices
• Supplier records
• Authorization letters
• Business registrations
• Bank records
• Identity documents
• Shipping records
• Contracts
• Standard operating procedures
• Employee training records
• Account-access records

Step 5: Identify the real root cause

"Amazon suspended us" is not a root cause.

"A customer complained" is usually not the complete root cause either.

The root cause is the process failure, factual event, relationship, documentation deficiency, sourcing weakness or other circumstance that produced the violation.

Step 6: Explain corrective actions

Tell Amazon what has already been fixed.

Step 7: Establish preventive controls

Amazon needs a credible reason to believe the same problem is unlikely to happen again.

Describe systems, not promises.

Step 8: Review everything before submitting

Check every factual representation against the supporting evidence and all previous submissions.

Contradictions between appeals, documents and account information can undermine the credibility of a reinstatement request.

Sellers who need help evaluating the notice and building the response can learn more about attorney-supervised Amazon suspension appeals.

What Should an Amazon Plan of Action Include?

A traditional Amazon Plan of Action generally contains three core components.

1. Root Cause

What actually caused the policy violation or account problem?

2. Corrective Actions

What did the seller do to correct the immediate problem?

3. Preventive Measures

What systems, policies or controls now prevent the same issue from recurring?

The strongest submissions are concise enough to understand quickly but sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the issue was investigated and addressed.

More words do not automatically create a stronger Amazon appeal.

More relevant facts and better evidence do.

What If Amazon Rejects Your Appeal?

Quick Answer: What should I do after Amazon rejects my appeal?

If Amazon rejects your appeal, do not automatically submit the same argument using different wording. Analyze the rejection, compare it with Amazon's original notice, identify what explanation or evidence is missing, and rebuild the submission where necessary.

Common reasons appeals fail can include:

• The wrong root cause
• Insufficient evidence
• Vague corrective actions
• Promises instead of preventive systems
• Inconsistent documentation
• Failure to address Amazon's actual concern
• Repeating previously rejected arguments

A seller who has already received several denials should be particularly careful about creating another inconsistent or incomplete submission.

If your appeal has already been rejected, AMZ Sellers Attorney® can review the deactivation notice, previous appeals and supporting documentation through its Amazon appeal and reinstatement service.

You can also review the firm's Amazon seller suspension FAQ for answers to common reinstatement questions.

How Long Does Amazon Reinstatement Take?

There is no universal Amazon account reinstatement timeline.

Some matters can receive responses relatively quickly, while complex Section 3, authenticity, related-account, IP and verification investigations can require additional review.

The quality of the initial submission matters.

Submitting an incomplete appeal immediately is not necessarily better than taking enough time to identify the problem and prepare the appropriate evidence.

Sellers should also distinguish between:

• An appeal that is legitimately under review
• A case receiving repeated generic denials
• A verification process requiring additional evidence
• A case that appears to have become stalled

Those situations may require different approaches.

Can Amazon Hold Your Money After Seller Account Deactivation?

An Amazon seller account deactivation can create a second major concern: access to seller proceeds.

Account reinstatement and funds recovery can be related issues, but they are not necessarily identical disputes.

If seller proceeds are being held, preserve all communications concerning:

• Account balances
• Disbursement eligibility
• Reserve or hold notices
• Requested verification
• Amazon's stated reason for withholding funds
• Any appeal or review opportunity Amazon provides

Cases involving substantial seller proceeds should be handled carefully because statements and documents submitted during the suspension process may become important if the dispute later requires additional legal escalation.

Should You Hire an Amazon Appeal Service or Amazon Seller Attorney?

Not every Amazon warning requires an attorney.

A seller who understands a straightforward operational problem and possesses strong documentation may be able to address the issue directly through Seller Central.

Professional assistance becomes more important as the legal, factual or financial stakes increase.

Consider attorney-supervised assistance when:

• Your seller account was deactivated under Section 3
• You do not understand Amazon's allegation
• Amazon identified a related account you do not recognize
• Substantial funds are being withheld
• Multiple appeals have been rejected
• The matter involves counterfeit or authenticity allegations
• Trademark, copyright or patent rights are involved
• Your evidence appears inconsistent with Amazon's conclusion
• Your business has substantial revenue or inventory at risk
• The dispute may require legal escalation beyond an ordinary Seller Central appeal

AMZ Sellers Attorney® provides attorney-supervised assistance for Amazon account deactivations, Section 3 matters, related-account cases, authenticity disputes, intellectual property complaints and other marketplace enforcement problems.

Learn more about Amazon seller account suspension appeals and reinstatement assistance →

Frequently Asked Questions About Amazon Seller Account Deactivation

Why did Amazon deactivate my seller account?

Amazon can deactivate seller accounts because of policy violations, Section 3 concerns, related accounts, authenticity complaints, intellectual property issues, verification failures, restricted products, dropshipping violations, review manipulation, performance problems and other marketplace-risk concerns. Read the Performance Notification carefully to identify the specific reason Amazon gives.

Can a deactivated Amazon seller account be reinstated?

Many deactivated Amazon seller accounts can be reinstated when the seller successfully addresses Amazon's concerns and submits the required explanation and supporting evidence. Reinstatement is not guaranteed and depends on the specific facts and enforcement issue.

How do I appeal an Amazon seller account suspension?

Review Amazon's notice, identify the underlying root cause, correct the problem, gather relevant supporting documentation, establish preventive controls and submit the response through the method Amazon specifies.

What is an Amazon Plan of Action?

A Plan of Action is a structured response typically explaining the root cause of a problem, the corrective actions already completed and the preventive measures implemented to avoid recurrence.

What is an Amazon Section 3 suspension?

A Section 3 suspension or deactivation generally refers to an enforcement action connected with Section 3 of Amazon's Business Solutions Agreement. These matters can involve account integrity, verification, authenticity, transaction or other marketplace-risk concerns.

What does "related account" mean on Amazon?

A related-account deactivation means Amazon believes your seller account is connected to another account with an unresolved enforcement issue. Depending on the circumstances, the seller may need to resolve the other account or submit evidence explaining why the association is incorrect or should not result in deactivation.

How does Amazon connect related seller accounts?

Amazon can evaluate overlapping account, ownership, business, payment, access, device, network and other information when assessing whether seller accounts are related. The precise evidence involved in a particular enforcement action may not always be disclosed to the seller.

What if I do not recognize the Amazon related account?

Do not fabricate an explanation. Review employees, former employees, contractors, service providers, business relationships, ownership history, account access and other legitimate circumstances that could explain a connection.

How long does an Amazon suspension appeal take?

There is no fixed response time for every appeal. Timing can depend on the violation, evidence, complexity of the matter, marketplace, previous appeal history and Amazon's review process.

How many times can you appeal an Amazon suspension?

The more useful question is whether another appeal provides new and relevant information that actually addresses Amazon's concern. Repeatedly sending substantially identical appeals is generally not an effective reinstatement strategy.

Why does Amazon keep rejecting my appeal?

Potential reasons include an incorrect root cause, insufficient evidence, vague corrective actions, inadequate preventive measures, inconsistent documents or failure to address the issue Amazon is investigating.

Can Amazon reject my invoices?

Yes. Amazon may determine that documentation is insufficient for its review. Sellers should examine whether invoices identify the supplier, match seller information, cover relevant products and quantities, and satisfy the particular documentation Amazon requested.

Can Amazon hold funds after deactivating an account?

Amazon may restrict access to disbursements following certain account deactivations or reviews. The applicable process depends on the account, enforcement reason, Amazon's notices and the contractual terms governing the seller relationship.

Can I open another Amazon seller account after being suspended?

Opening or using another account to circumvent an unresolved deactivation can create additional enforcement problems. Sellers should resolve the existing problem and understand Amazon's requirements concerning multiple seller accounts before attempting to operate another account.

Does Amazon allow multiple seller accounts?

Amazon's policies can permit multiple selling accounts in appropriate circumstances, but sellers should comply with Amazon's current requirements and should not use another account to avoid enforcement affecting an existing account.

Does Amazon allow dropshipping?

Amazon permits dropshipping when applicable requirements are followed, including seller-of-record and fulfillment requirements. Sellers can face enforcement when another retailer or supplier is presented to the customer as the seller instead of the Amazon merchant responsible for the transaction.

Can an IP complaint suspend my Amazon account?

Intellectual property complaints may affect individual listings and can create broader account-health consequences when allegations are serious, repeated or remain unresolved.

Can Amazon suspend me for selling authentic products?

An authenticity investigation can occur even when a seller believes the products are genuine. The dispute may center on the seller's ability to document and verify the source and supply chain rather than merely the seller's assertion that the goods are authentic.

Should I keep submitting appeals after Amazon says no?

Do not repeatedly submit substantially identical arguments. Review the rejection and determine whether the root cause, evidence, corrective actions or preventive measures need to be changed before making another submission.

Do I need an attorney to appeal an Amazon seller suspension?

No. Sellers can submit their own appeals. Attorney-supervised assistance may become particularly useful in complex Section 3, related-account, IP, authenticity, withheld-funds, repeated-denial and legal-escalation cases.

Get Help With a Deactivated Amazon Seller Account

An Amazon seller account deactivation can stop sales, strand inventory, interrupt cash flow and place a business that took years to build at risk.

The most important decision after receiving a suspension notice may be what you put into the record next.

Do not submit a generic template simply because you want an immediate response.

Identify the allegation. Preserve the evidence. Determine the root cause. Correct the underlying problem. Establish verifiable preventive controls. Then prepare a response tailored to Amazon's actual concern.

If Amazon has already deactivated your seller account, rejected your appeal, linked you to another seller account, questioned your supply chain or raised another serious compliance issue, AMZ Sellers Attorney® provides attorney-supervised Amazon suspension and reinstatement assistance.

Get help with your Amazon seller account appeal →

AMZ Sellers Attorney®
Amazon Seller Suspension Appeals • Section 3 Defense • Related Accounts • IP Complaints • Authenticity Cases • Legal Escalation

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice for any particular seller or matter. Amazon policies, procedures and enforcement practices can change. Sellers should review their current Amazon notices, applicable policies and contractual terms.

Patent Challenge Options Are Shrinking: What the USPTO Reexamination Crackdown Means for Amazon Sellers

By Kenneth G. Eade, Founding Attorney, AMZ Sellers Attorney · Patent review by Michael S. Brandt, USPTO Registered Patent Attorney (Reg. No. 39119) · Published August 7, 2026 · Reading time: 9 minutes

Short answer: Ex parte reexamination (EPR) has been the cheapest realistic way for an accused infringer to attack a weak patent, and it just got materially riskier. The USPTO grant rate for EPR requests, which sat near 95% from 2012 through September 2025, fell to roughly 70% in May 2026 before recovering to about 80% in June and 88% in July. The main driver is an April 2026 procedure that lets patent owners argue against reexamination before the Office decides whether to order it. A separate proposed rule published July 22, 2026 would require third-party requesters to name every real party in interest, ending the practical anonymity that made EPR attractive to sellers who did not want to advertise their identity to a patent troll.

What it means for e-commerce sellers: the "file a reexam as a backup" strategy is no longer safe to assume. The first request now has to be your best request. See our patent reexamination defense practice for how we build one.

Key takeaways

• EPR grant rates dropped to a historic low of about 70% in May 2026, from a long-running baseline near 95%.
• Since April 5, 2026, patent owners may file a 30-page "pre-order" paper within 30 days of service arguing there is no substantial new question of patentability.
• Requesters have no automatic right of reply, only a 10-page response by petition and fee in limited circumstances.
• EPR requests more than tripled in FY 2026, reaching 1,644 through June against 491 for all of FY 2025, straining the Central Reexamination Unit.
• In the Geotab matter, the CRU denied an EPR that recycled arguments from a discretionarily denied IPR petition, closing the fallback route.
• A proposed rule (Docket PTO-P-2025-0545, RIN 0651-AD94) would add 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(7) requiring identification of all real parties in interest. Comments close August 21, 2026.
• Cost differential still favors reexamination: roughly $100,000 to $150,000 for an EPR against roughly $1.5 million to try validity to a jury.

What actually happened at the USPTO

Bloomberg Law reported on August 6, 2026 that policy changes under USPTO Director John Squires have produced a historic drop in the ex parte reexamination grant rate. The numbers, drawn from the reexamination analytics platform ExamPat, are stark. From the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2012 through September 2025, the grant rate for EPR requests hovered around 95%. It fell to approximately 70% in May 2026, then partially recovered to about 80% in June and 88% in July.

That baseline is worth pausing on. Under the old regime, a competent request was granted as a matter of course. A former PTAB judge quoted in the Bloomberg piece put it bluntly: getting a request denied used to take real effort. Reexamination was predictable at the front end even if the outcome on the merits was not. That predictability is what made it a workable budget option for defendants, and that predictability is what is now gone.

Why this matters specifically to Amazon and marketplace sellers

Most sellers who encounter the patent system encounter it in one of four ways, and reexamination touches every one of them:

1. An Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding. A utility patent owner triggers APEX, the seller posts a deposit, and a neutral evaluator decides likely infringement on a compressed schedule. A parallel invalidity attack at the USPTO is often the only leverage a seller has, because APEX itself does not adjudicate validity.
2. A Schedule A mass defendant case. A single complaint names dozens or hundreds of storefronts, funds are frozen by TRO, and settlement demands arrive before merits are ever tested. A reexamination that puts the asserted claims into question changes the settlement math.
3. A direct patent infringement complaint to Amazon that pulls listings without any court involvement.
4. A district court suit where the cost of litigating validity dwarfs the value of the product line.

In all four scenarios, the practical question is the same: can the seller attack the patent for a price that makes economic sense? A patent lawyer formerly with the USPTO Denver Regional Office, quoted in the Bloomberg report, framed the cost gap plainly. An EPR request runs roughly $100,000 to $150,000. Putting the same invalidity theory to a jury runs roughly $1.5 million. For a seller with a six-figure ASIN, one of those numbers is a strategy and the other is a surrender.

Our ex parte reexamination practice exists precisely because that gap decides outcomes for e-commerce defendants.

The April 2026 pre-order procedure, in detail

The proximate cause of the grant rate collapse is an Official Gazette Notice signed by Director Squires on April 1, 2026, effective for reexamination requests filed on or after April 5, 2026. Under the prior framework codified at 37 C.F.R. 1.530(a) and 1.540, a patent owner could not file anything before the Office made its substantial new question (SNQ) determination under 35 U.S.C. 303(a). The patent owner's first turn came only after reexamination had already been ordered.

The new procedure inverts that. Its mechanics:

April 2026 EPR pre-order procedure at a glance

Element	Requirement
Effective date	Requests filed on or after April 5, 2026
Patent owner deadline	30 days from service of the request; no extensions
Page limit	30 pages, excluding a supporting declaration
Fee	None
Permitted scope	SNQ arguments only; not 35 U.S.C. 325(d) discretion
Requester reply	Only by petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.182 with fee, capped at 10 pages, within 15 days
Legal vehicle	Waiver of existing rules, not notice-and-comment rulemaking

Patent owners adopted it immediately. Of 234 reexamination requests filed between April 6 and June 11, 2026, patent owners filed a pre-order challenge in 97, roughly 42%, according to Unified Patents' first-half 2026 patent dispute report. Monthly EPR request volume peaked at 136 in May and fell to 79 in June, the low for the year.

Two structural points deserve attention. First, the asymmetry is deliberate and mirrors pre-institution IPR practice, where a petitioner has no reply to a patent owner preliminary response. Second, the Office implemented this through a rule waiver reserved for extraordinary situations rather than through rulemaking, which is itself a live question for practitioners and a potential vulnerability if the procedure is ever challenged.

The volume problem the USPTO created for itself

The surge in reexamination filings is not organic. It is displacement. Beginning in 2025, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart and then Director Squires installed a director-level pre-screening layer for IPR petitions, allowing rejection on non-merits grounds including the age of the targeted patent. Challengers responded rationally by shifting to the Central Reexamination Unit.

The scale is remarkable. EPR requests in FY 2026 through June reached 1,644, against 491 for the entirety of FY 2025, a more than threefold increase to a historic high. A Knobbe Martens partner interviewed by Bloomberg identified the obvious consequence: the CRU does not have the personnel to absorb that volume, and a falling institution rate is the predictable result. He also offered a less comfortable explanation, that the flood brought in a larger proportion of marginal requests than the historically self-selected pool of high-confidence filings.

Both explanations point the same direction for counsel. Whatever the mix of policy and capacity, the Office is now saying no. A request that would have sailed through in 2024 is a coin flip in 2026.

Geotab: the fallback strategy is dead

The single most consequential development for defense counsel is a denial, not a policy. Bloomberg reported a dispute involving Spanish patent owner Fractus SA and fleet management company Geotab Inc. Geotab filed IPR petitions in April 2025 challenging two Fractus patents. Both petitions were discretionarily denied under the then-new practice of rejecting challenges to patents more than six years into their twenty-year terms. Geotab pivoted, filing an EPR request on one patent grounded in substantially similar obviousness arguments.

In May 2026, the CRU denied that request, noting that Geotab was advancing arguments similar to those in its PTAB petition.

A McKool Smith litigator described the practical fallout: parties are already reluctant to file IPR petitions for fear of discretionary denial, and many treated EPR as the fallback. After Geotab, that assumption no longer holds. The sequencing that many defendants planned around, petition first and reexamine second, now carries a real risk that the second bite is refused because of the first.

Practical rule for sellers: if you are going to challenge a patent, decide your forum before you file anything, and assume you get one shot. Arguments burned in a denied PTAB petition may be unavailable at the CRU. We work this sequencing question at the outset of every matter on our patent reexamination and invalidity defense team.

The end of anonymous reexamination requests

On July 22, 2026, the USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would add 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(7), requiring every third-party request for ex parte reexamination to include a statement identifying all real parties in interest. The docket is PTO-P-2025-0545, RIN 0651-AD94, and comments are due August 21, 2026.

The Office's stated rationale is estoppel enforcement and fraud mitigation. Inter partes review has always required a petitioner to name all real parties in interest under 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(2). Reexamination never has, and the Office now describes anonymous filing as being in tension with the estoppel provisions of sections 315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1). A requester may ask that the statement be kept confidential and excluded from the public file, but the Office would know.

This is not a new idea. The USPTO proposed a comparable requirement during the 2012 AIA rulemaking and abandoned it after comments warned of a chilling effect on filings. Its return signals a different institutional posture.

Why sellers should care. For a marketplace seller, anonymity is not a technicality. It is often the entire reason reexamination is viable. A seller who quietly attacks an asserted patent through registered counsel avoids becoming the named target in a follow-on infringement suit, avoids identifying itself to an aggressive NPE as a party with money and counsel, and avoids signaling to competitors that a shared product category is under legal pressure. If the rule is adopted as proposed, a confidential-to-the-Office statement is still a record, and records can be reached. The calculus changes.

What we are advising clients to do now

1. Front-load the prior art search. With a 70% to 88% grant rate, the marginal request is no longer worth filing. Invest in the search before you invest in the request.
2. Draft the request anticipating the pre-order paper. Assume the patent owner will file 30 pages attacking your SNQ showing and that you will not get to reply. Address the obvious counterarguments inside your request.
3. Build genuinely non-cumulative art. MPEP 2216 and 2242 require a new teaching, either non-cumulative or one that casts prior art in a new light. Art that merely restates what the examiner already considered will not survive a competent pre-order challenge.
4. Choose the forum once. After Geotab, treat IPR and EPR as alternatives, not as a sequence. If a patent is more than six years into its term, weigh discretionary denial risk before committing to a PTAB petition whose arguments you may need later.
5. File before the RPI rule takes effect if anonymity matters. The proposed rule is not final, but the direction is clear. Requests filed under the current framework are governed by the current framework.
6. Coordinate with the marketplace proceeding. A pending reexamination request does not, by itself, suspend an APEX evaluation or lift a Schedule A TRO. It is leverage, not a stay. Timing the reexamination against the marketplace and court calendars is a separate strategic decision.
7. Consider submitting a comment. The August 21, 2026 comment deadline is a genuine opportunity for accused-infringer interests, which are chronically underrepresented in USPTO rulemaking relative to patent owner interests.

The broader picture

Reexamination was created in 1980 to give the public an inexpensive administrative check on issued patents. The 2011 AIA layered inter partes review on top of it, and for a decade the tech industry treated EPR as the disfavored option because its one-sided structure was seen as too friendly to patent owners. The irony of 2026 is that the same one-sidedness that made EPR unattractive is being reinforced, at the same moment that IPR has been restricted enough to push everyone back toward it.

Defenders of the changes point to district court as the remaining venue. That answer works for a corporation with a litigation budget. It does not work for an Amazon seller whose entire annual revenue is a fraction of what a validity trial costs. When the administrative options narrow, the parties squeezed hardest are the smallest ones, and in the marketplace economy that means sellers.

The demand for patent challenges is not going to disappear. As the Holland & Hart lawyer quoted by Bloomberg observed, no one seriously believes the USPTO never issues a bad patent. The question is what remains available to the people on the receiving end of one.

Facing a patent claim on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, or TikTok Shop?

AMZ Sellers Attorney handles APEX proceedings, Schedule A defense, patent infringement complaints, and USPTO reexamination strategy for e-commerce sellers worldwide. Founding attorney Kenneth G. Eade has practiced since 1980 and is a former seven-figure Amazon FBA seller. Patent matters are handled with USPTO-registered patent attorney Michael S. Brandt (Reg. No. 39119).

Learn more about our patent reexamination services, or contact us directly:

Phone: +1-888-806-2440
Email: [email protected]
Office: 9350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203, Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Frequently asked questions

What is ex parte reexamination and why do e-commerce sellers use it?

Ex parte reexamination is an administrative proceeding in which anyone can ask the USPTO to re-review an issued patent against prior patents and printed publications. The Central Reexamination Unit decides whether the request raises a substantial new question of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 303(a). Sellers use it because it costs a fraction of district court litigation and, until the July 2026 proposed rule, could be filed without publicly identifying the requester.

Did the USPTO ex parte reexamination grant rate really drop?

Yes. According to ExamPat data reported by Bloomberg Law on August 6, 2026, the grant rate held near 95% from 2012 through September 2025, fell to roughly 70% in May 2026, then rose to about 80% in June and 88% in July. Even the recovered rate is well below the historical baseline.

What is the April 2026 pre-order procedure?

An Official Gazette Notice signed April 1, 2026 permits patent owners, for requests filed on or after April 5, 2026, to file a paper of up to 30 pages within 30 days of service arguing that a reexamination request does not raise a substantial new question of patentability. No fee is required and no extensions are available. The requester has no automatic right to reply and may respond only by petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.182, limited to 10 pages within 15 days.

Can I still file a reexamination as a fallback after an IPR is discretionarily denied?

It is no longer reliable. In a Fractus SA and Geotab Inc. dispute, the Central Reexamination Unit denied an EPR request in May 2026 in part because the requester was advancing arguments similar to those in its discretionarily denied PTAB petition. Counsel should now select a forum at the outset rather than treating reexamination as an automatic second option.

Will ex parte reexamination requests still be anonymous?

Possibly not. A notice of proposed rulemaking published July 22, 2026 (Docket PTO-P-2025-0545, RIN 0651-AD94) would add 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(7) requiring identification of all real parties in interest. A requester could ask that the statement be withheld from the public file, but the USPTO would know the requester's identity. Comments were due by August 21, 2026, and the rule was not final as of this article's publication.

How much does ex parte reexamination cost compared to litigating validity?

Practitioners cited by Bloomberg Law estimate roughly $100,000 to $150,000 to file an EPR request, against approximately $1.5 million to present the same invalidity case to a jury. For most marketplace sellers, that difference determines whether a defense is economically possible at all.

Does a reexamination help against an Amazon APEX patent claim?

It can, but not automatically. Amazon Patent Evaluation Express decides likely infringement, not validity, so a pending reexamination does not by itself resolve or suspend an APEX proceeding. Its value is leverage: a granted reexamination materially weakens the patent owner's position in APEX, in settlement, and in any follow-on litigation. Sequencing the two proceedings is a strategic decision that should be made before either is triggered.

What should a seller do first after receiving a patent infringement claim?

Preserve the notice and all listing data, do not respond substantively without counsel, and obtain a prompt assessment of both non-infringement and invalidity. Deadlines in APEX proceedings and Schedule A TRO cases run quickly, and under the 2026 framework the choice of challenge forum should be made before any filing. Contact AMZ Sellers Attorney at [email protected] or +1-888-806-2440.

Sources

• Nino Paoli and Michael Shapiro, "Patent Challenge Options Shrink After Agency Tightens Policies," Bloomberg Law, August 6, 2026.
• USPTO, Official Gazette Notice on pre-order procedure in ex parte reexamination, April 1, 2026 (effective April 5, 2026).
• USPTO, "Requirement to Identify All Real Parties in Interest to a Third Party Request for an Ex Parte Reexamination," 91 Fed. Reg. 46038 (July 22, 2026), Docket PTO-P-2025-0545, RIN 0651-AD94.
• Unified Patents, Patent Dispute Report: First Half 2026.
• Dennis Crouch, "Anonymous No More: Real-Party Disclosure Comes to Ex Parte Reexamination," Patently-O, July 2026.
• MPEP 2216, 2242; 35 U.S.C. 303(a), 312(a)(2), 315(e)(1), 325(d), 325(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. 1.182, 1.510, 1.530, 1.540.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Patent procedure is fact-specific and USPTO policy in this area is changing rapidly; verify current rules and deadlines before acting. AMZ Sellers Attorney is a trade name of Amazon Sellers Attorney, Ltd. Kenneth G. Eade is licensed in California (Bar No. 93774). Michael S. Brandt is a USPTO-registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 39119) licensed in Washington and California.

Amazon Seller Defense

Amazon Enforcement in 2026: What Changed, and How Sellers Resolve It

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774, practicing since 1980 · Verify license

Published August 5, 2026 · Approx. 9 minute read

The short version

Effective March 4, 2026, Amazon updated the Business Solutions Agreement. It added an Agent Policy governing automated software and AI agents that access Amazon Services on a seller’s behalf; added restrictions on using Amazon materials or services to develop AI or machine-learning systems, with strengthened anti-reverse-engineering language; created a separate Business Solutions Agreement for the Mexico store; and added a new Section 20 setting out an arbitrator’s power, carrying forward the existing binding arbitration language and class-action waiver. Continued use of a seller account after that date constituted acceptance. There was no opt-out.

Read together with what we are seeing in deactivation notices, the practical picture is this: enforcement decides first and reviews second, and the compliance surface has widened to include software the seller did not write. The response has not changed as much as sellers assume. Identify the exact category cited, build the documentary record before writing anything, and submit one complete appeal rather than three partial ones.

What the March 2026 BSA Update Actually Did

The Agent Policy is the change with the widest reach

The Agent Policy sets requirements for automated software and AI agents that access Amazon Services on a seller’s behalf: such software must identify itself as automated, must comply on a continuing basis rather than at signup, and must cease access when Amazon requires it. Amazon reserved the ability to restrict agent access under both the BSA and the new policy.

Its significance is not the text. It is that almost no seller has ever inventoried what touches their account. A modern seller stack routinely includes a repricer, a listing manager, an inventory and forecasting tool, review and feedback software, a research suite, an accounting integration, and increasingly an AI assistant that someone on the team connected during a trial and nobody switched off. Every one of those operates under the seller’s credentials, and the seller answers for what they do.

Practical step: maintain a written log of every tool with account or API access — what it is, what permissions it holds, what it does with the data, and who authorized it. Review it quarterly and when anyone leaves the team. A useful default: if you cannot explain in one sentence why a tool needs the access it has, remove the access. If a dispute later reaches arbitration, that log is the evidence you will wish you had built before you needed it.

The AI and machine-learning restrictions

The update restricts using Amazon materials or services to train AI models or develop machine-learning systems on Amazon data, and strengthened the anti-reverse-engineering language. Sellers who have been scraping detail pages, review corpora, or competitor pricing to feed a model should treat that as a live compliance exposure rather than a gray area — particularly where the scraping runs through a vendor whose methods the seller has never examined. Outsourcing the activity does not outsource the exposure.

Section 20 and what it does not change

Amazon described the new Section 20 as detailing an arbitrator’s power while carrying forward the existing binding arbitration language and class-action waiver. In substance, the seller’s route is unchanged: claims against Amazon go to binding individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, or the ICDR for many cross-border sellers. Nothing in the reorganization narrows the availability of that forum.

What it does change is citation discipline. When a contract’s dispute-resolution architecture is restated, the operative version is the one in force at the relevant time, and any brief, demand, or opinion letter should identify which version governs the claim rather than carrying forward a citation from a prior filing. That is housekeeping, but it is the kind of housekeeping that gets noticed in a well-run arbitration.

Mexico is now a separate agreement

Amazon added a distinct Business Solutions Agreement for the Mexico store and removed Mexico references from the US and Canada agreement. Sellers operating across North America should confirm which agreement governs each store, because dispute-resolution and notice provisions do not necessarily travel between them.

Five Enforcement Patterns We Are Seeing

The following describes patterns across matters this firm has handled in 2026. It is a practitioner’s account of a caseload, not a statistical study of the marketplace, and it is offered as such.

1. The appeal is the first human review, not a second opinion

In a growing share of matters, the enforcement decision is automated and the first substantive human look at the account happens when someone reads the appeal. Sellers write as though a reviewer already understands the business. That reader does not exist.

Resolution: build the record from zero, in the order a stranger needs it. What the business sells, where it sources, what happened, what the documents show, what changed. Assume no prior context and no benefit of the doubt.

2. Authenticity is decided on verifiability, not authenticity

Sourcing and authenticity complaints remain the largest single driver of account-level deactivations, and Amazon frequently takes the whole account rather than the listing. The outcome turns on whether invoices name a supplier Amazon can reach, whether quantities reconcile against units sold, and whether that supplier answers when contacted.

Resolution: a genuine product with unverifiable paperwork loses to a modest product with responsive paperwork. Before submitting, contact the supplier and confirm they will respond to a verification inquiry. If they will not, that fact changes the strategy and needs to be known before the appeal goes in, not after.

3. Related-account links are increasingly operational, not just technical

The classic data points still apply — device, IP, address, bank account, tax identity, employee, family member. What has grown is linkage inferred from operational overlap: shared suppliers, shared infrastructure, shared service providers. Third-party account management is a recurring cause, because a provider logging into many seller accounts creates a data point the seller does not control.

Resolution: identify the probable link before drafting, since Amazon will not disclose it and an appeal that misses it cannot succeed. Then establish independent ownership, operation, and finances with documents. Where a prior account exists, address it directly — omission reads as concealment and is far harder to recover from than the original link. See related accounts appeals.

4. Automation is now a category of allegation

With the Agent Policy in force, tool behavior is a compliance question in its own right. Sellers are being asked to account for activity generated by software they did not write and, in some cases, did not know was still connected — a trial integration from eighteen months ago, a former contractor’s access, a vendor whose methods were never examined.

Resolution: audit access now, while nothing is wrong. Revoke what you cannot justify. Keep the log current and dated. A contemporaneous access log created before an enforcement action carries evidentiary weight that a reconstruction after the fact does not.

5. Listing-content enforcement is catching compliant sellers

Title standardization, prohibited claims in bullets, variation structure, and category placement are being enforced with less tolerance than sellers are used to. Much of it is technically correctable, but the enforcement often arrives as a suppression rather than a warning, and a suppression during a peak period is a revenue event whatever its severity on paper.

Resolution: most of this is genuinely a consultant-tier problem and should be handled as one. It becomes a legal matter only when the suppression cascades into an account-level action or when funds are implicated. Choosing the right tier is covered in our comparison of Amazon appeal providers.

Notice Category → Correct Response

Notice category	What decides it	Correct first move
Performance metric (ODR, LSR, VTR, cancellation)	Objective data and a credible operational fix	Corrective plan with dated evidence of the change
Inauthentic / sourcing	Whether the supply chain is verifiable end to end	Confirm supplier responsiveness before submitting anything
Section 3 deactivation	A trust-and-safety determination, not a metric	Treat as a legal matter. Statements become exhibits. Section 3 guide
Related or linked account	Whether the appeal addresses the actual link	Reconstruct the probable data point first; disclose prior accounts
Manipulated or forged documents	A fraud allegation with consequences beyond the account	Do not answer without privilege
Withheld disbursements / inventory disposal	A contract question, not a policy question	Written demand under the BSA. Funds recovery
IP complaint / APEX notice	The scope and validity of the asserted right	Rights analysis and, where abusive, a retraction demand
Any appeal already denied	What the prior submissions already committed you to	Diagnose the defect before resubmitting anything

The First 72 Hours

1. Preserve the notice exactly as received, headers and case ID included.
2. Do not open a new account. This converts an appealable action into a related-account matter, which is materially harder.
3. Do not submit anything yet. A rushed template today can foreclose the argument that would have worked next month.
4. Export everything while access lasts: orders, disbursement and reserve reports, inventory and any disposal notices, supplier invoices, and the complete performance-notification history.
5. Identify the exact category cited. Section 3, inauthentic, related accounts, verification, review manipulation, restricted products, safety, and IP each require different evidence.
6. Audit tool access and log what had permissions at the time of the action.
7. Then draft once, completely.

Every submission joins a permanent record that reviewers read and an arbitrator may later read. The record you build in week one determines what remains arguable in month six.

When an Appeal Stops Being the Right Instrument

An appeal asks Amazon’s reviewers to reverse an Amazon decision. That is the correct instrument while the live question is whether the seller complied with policy. It becomes the wrong instrument when the question changes shape — and it changes shape more often than sellers notice.

• Withheld disbursements are a contract question under the BSA. No volume of appeals reaches them.
• A bad-faith rights owner complaint is a dispute with the complainant, not with Amazon.
• Inventory disposed of during a deactivation is a damages question.

When the question is contractual, the instrument is a written demand and, if that does not resolve it, arbitration under the Business Solutions Agreement. Continuing to appeal at that point does not merely fail — it adds submissions to a record that will be read back as exhibits. Recognizing the switch point is most of the skill. Our Amazon appeals practice page sets out how we sequence the appeal against the contract claim so that neither undermines the other.

Send Us the Notice Before You Send Amazon Anything

Attorney review of the exact notice, the real enforcement category identified, and a flat fee confirmed in writing before any work begins. $1,500 for most appeals; $2,300 for IP and related-account matters.

SEE HOW OUR APPEALS WORK Call (888) 806-2440

Frequently Asked Questions

What changed in the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement in 2026?

Effective March 4, 2026, Amazon added a new Agent Policy setting requirements for automated software and AI agents accessing Amazon Services on a seller’s behalf; added restrictions on using Amazon materials or services to develop AI or machine-learning systems, with strengthened anti-reverse-engineering language; created a separate Business Solutions Agreement for the Mexico store and removed Mexico references from the US and Canada agreement; and added a new Section 20 setting out an arbitrator’s power while carrying forward the existing binding arbitration language and class-action waiver. Amazon also added definitions for Agent, Applicable Government Authority, and Our Materials, and replaced Developer Site references with Solution Provider Portal. Continued use of a seller account after that date constituted acceptance, with no opt-out.

What is the Amazon Agent Policy and how does it affect my account?

It governs automated software and AI agents that access Amazon Services on your behalf, requiring that such software identify itself as automated, comply on a continuing basis rather than at signup, and cease access when Amazon requires it. Its practical significance is that it creates a compliance surface most sellers have never audited. Repricers, listing tools, inventory systems, feedback software, research suites, and AI assistants all operate under your credentials, and you answer for tools operating under those credentials whether or not you built them. Keep a written inventory of every tool with account or API access, what permissions it holds, and what it does with the data. If a dispute reaches arbitration, that inventory is evidence — and a log created before the enforcement action carries weight a reconstruction does not.

Does the new Section 20 change my right to arbitrate against Amazon?

No. Amazon described Section 20 as new in placement but not in substance: it details an arbitrator’s power while carrying forward the existing binding arbitration language and class-action waiver. Seller claims continue to route to binding individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, or the ICDR for many cross-border sellers. What the reorganization does affect is drafting discipline — when a dispute-resolution architecture is restated, the operative version is the one in force at the relevant time, and a demand or brief should identify which version governs rather than carrying a citation forward from a prior filing.

Why do Amazon suspensions in 2026 feel automated and immediate?

Because in a growing share of matters the enforcement decision is automated and the first substantive human review of the account happens when someone reads the appeal. That has a consequence sellers consistently underestimate: the appeal is not a request to reconsider a human judgment, it is the first chance to present the case to a human at all. A submission written as though the reviewer already understands your business, supply chain, and account history is written for a reader who does not exist. Build the record from nothing, in the order a stranger would need it.

What is the most common Amazon deactivation trigger right now?

Authenticity and sourcing continue to drive the largest share of account-level deactivations, and Amazon frequently takes the entire account rather than the affected listing. These matters are decided on documentation, not explanation. What determines the outcome is whether invoices identify a supplier Amazon can verify, whether quantities reconcile against units sold, and whether the supplier responds when contacted. A genuine product with unverifiable paperwork is in a worse position than a modest one with responsive paperwork — which is why confirming supplier responsiveness belongs before the submission, not after.

How do I appeal a related account deactivation?

Start by identifying which shared data point Amazon most likely relied on, because Amazon will not disclose it and an appeal that misses the actual link cannot succeed. Links are inferred from device, IP address, physical address, bank account, tax identity, employee, family member, and service provider overlaps, and increasingly from operational patterns such as shared suppliers and infrastructure. Third-party account management is a recurring cause. The appeal must then establish independent ownership, operation, and finances with documents — and where a prior account exists, address it directly. Omission is read as concealment and is harder to recover from than the link itself. See our related accounts appeals page.

What should I do in the first 72 hours after a deactivation notice?

Preserve the notice exactly as received, including headers and any case identifier. Do not open a new account — that converts an appealable action into a related-account matter. Do not submit anything yet. Export account data while access remains: orders, disbursement and reserve reports, inventory and disposal notices, supplier invoices, and the full notification history. Identify the exact policy category cited, since each requires different evidence. Audit and log what tools had account access at the time of the action. Then draft once, completely, because every submission enters a permanent record that reviewers read and an arbitrator may later read. Send us the notice first.

When does an Amazon appeal stop being the right tool?

An appeal asks Amazon’s own reviewers to reverse an Amazon decision, and it is correct while the live question is policy compliance. It becomes the wrong instrument when the question changes. Withheld disbursements are a contract question under the Business Solutions Agreement, and no volume of appeals reaches them. A bad-faith rights owner complaint is a dispute with the complainant, not with Amazon. Disposed inventory is a damages question. When the question is contractual, the instrument is a written demand and, if necessary, arbitration — and continuing to appeal simply adds submissions to a record that will be read back as exhibits.

Related reading

Amazon Appeals — How We Work → Appeal Service Guarantees Compared → Section 3 Deactivation Defense → Frozen Funds Recovery →

AMZ Sellers Attorney® · Amazon Sellers Attorney, Ltd.

9350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 · (888) 806-2440 · [email protected]

Legal notice: This article provides general information for online marketplace sellers and does not create an attorney-client relationship or constitute legal advice. Descriptions of the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement reflect Amazon’s published update effective March 4, 2026; sellers should confirm the operative version applicable to their store and claim, as terms change without notice. Statements about enforcement patterns describe matters handled by this firm and are observational, not statistical. No result is guaranteed; every case depends on the specific notice, account history, documents, platform response, and applicable legal issues. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney-reviewed by Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774. Published August 5, 2026.

IP Litigation

When Does a Marketplace IP Dispute Become a Federal Lawsuit?

Most disputes never leave the platform. The ones that do follow a recognizable path — and the seller who recognizes it early gets to choose the forum instead of receiving it.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774, with Michael S. Brandt, USPTO Reg. No. 39119 · August 2, 2026

Sellers tend to experience IP disputes as isolated events. A complaint arrives, a listing comes down, they respond, it resolves or it doesn't. Each one feels like its own small crisis.

Viewed from the outside, most of these disputes are moving along a path with five stages. Knowing where you are on it — and which way things are heading — is most of the strategy.

Stage one: the platform complaint

A rights holder files. The listing comes down. The seller responds through the marketplace's process.

The overwhelming majority of disputes begin and end here, and that's appropriate — it's fast and cheap. But understand what this stage is: the platform is not adjudicating rights. It is managing risk. A marketplace deciding a complaint is not deciding who owns anything, and a favorable outcome here doesn't resolve the underlying legal question at all.

Related reading on the specific complaint types: copyright complaints on product photos and APEX patent notices.

Stage two: the retraction demand

Where a complaint is baseless, the efficient move is often to go directly to the complainant rather than continuing to argue with the platform. A well-supported retraction demand sets out why the complaint fails and what exposure the complainant carries if they persist.

This resolves more matters than sellers expect, particularly where the complaint was filed reflexively by a brand protection vendor who never examined the facts.

It also produces valuable information. A complainant who ignores a well-supported retraction demand is telling you they intend to keep going — and that's the first real signal that the matter may not stay on the platform.

Stage three: the USPTO proceeding

Where the dispute is really about whether a registration or patent should exist, the fight moves to the Office: cancellation, opposition, expungement, or patent reexamination.

These proceedings do something valuable and something limited, and sellers regularly misjudge which is which.

The TTAB decides registrability, not liability.

It can refuse or cancel a registration. It cannot award damages, cannot issue an injunction, and cannot order anyone to stop doing anything. Where your practical harm is ongoing disruption of your business rather than the existence of a registration, the Board cannot give you the remedy you need. Sellers sometimes spend a year on a cancellation and find the underlying conduct continued throughout.

Stage four: federal court, by your choice

This is the stage most sellers don't know exists, and it's where the initiative shifts.

A declaratory judgment action asks a federal court to declare that you don't infringe, or that the asserted right is invalid or unenforceable — before the rights holder sues you. It converts you from a defendant waiting to be sued into a plaintiff choosing the timing and often the venue.

It requires an actual controversy, which generally means the rights holder has done enough to create a real and immediate dispute. Repeated platform complaints, cease and desist letters, and public accusations often supply that.

When does it make sense? Classically: a rights holder is repeatedly disrupting your business through platform complaints without ever filing suit. They get the benefit of the accusation with none of the cost or risk. You can't operate and you can't resolve it. A declaratory judgment action forces the question into a forum where they have to prove something.

Affirmative claims can run alongside. Where a competitor knowingly files baseless complaints, possible theories include tortious interference, unfair competition, and in the copyright context a misrepresentation claim under Section 512(f). None is a simple filing — each needs proof of knowledge or intent, quantified damages, and the resources to litigate. But they exist, and a complainant who assumes there's no downside to abusive filing is sometimes wrong.

Stage five: federal court, not by your choice

The other way sellers arrive in federal court is a Schedule A case: a lawsuit naming dozens or hundreds of online sellers as defendants identified in a sealed schedule, frequently in the Northern District of Illinois or a comparable venue.

The plaintiff typically obtains an ex parte temporary restraining order freezing marketplace accounts and payment processor balances before any defendant has been served or heard.

Three things sellers need to know about this and usually learn too late. The deadlines move fast. The frozen funds are not released by appealing to the platform — the freeze exists because of a court order, and the platform is complying with it. And responding requires appearing in the federal case, which is a different undertaking from anything on the marketplace side.

Notably, sellers often reach stage five without passing through stages one through four at all. The first notice is a frozen account.

The signals that a dispute is about to escalate

Watch for these. Each is a meaningful shift, not a routine event:

• A well-supported retraction demand is ignored. They intend to continue.
• Complaints repeat across multiple listings or accounts. That's a campaign, not an objection.
• Correspondence arrives from litigation counsel rather than a brand protection agency. Different budget, different intent.
• A cease and desist demands an accounting of past sales. They're building a damages theory.
• An account or balance freezes with no preceding platform complaint. A court order likely already exists and service hasn't reached you.

Matching the forum to the remedy

The single most useful discipline here is asking what you actually need, and then checking whether the forum you're in can provide it.

Need a listing restored? Platform process, or a retraction demand.

Need a registration removed? USPTO — cancellation, opposition, expungement, reexamination.

Need someone ordered to stop? Federal court. Nothing else can issue an injunction.

Need to be paid for losses? Federal court. Neither the platform nor the TTAB awards damages.

Need frozen funds released after a TRO? Federal court, in the case that issued the order.

Sellers lose time and money by pursuing the right claim in the wrong forum — most commonly by seeking through platform appeals a remedy no platform has the power to grant.

Frequently asked

Can I sue someone for filing false IP complaints against my listings?

Potentially, with more than one theory depending on the facts. Where a competitor knowingly files baseless complaints, possible claims include tortious interference, unfair competition, and in the copyright context a Section 512(f) misrepresentation claim. None is simple — each requires proof of knowledge or intent, quantified damages, and the resources to litigate in federal court. The threshold question is usually economic.

What is a declaratory judgment action and when does it make sense?

It asks a federal court to declare that you don't infringe, or that the asserted right is invalid or unenforceable, before the rights holder sues you — converting you from a waiting defendant into a plaintiff choosing timing and often venue. It requires an actual controversy. It makes sense where a rights holder repeatedly disrupts your business through platform complaints without ever filing suit, leaving you unable to operate and unable to resolve the matter.

Why can't the TTAB solve my whole problem?

Because it decides registrability, not liability. It can refuse or cancel a registration, which addresses the register. It cannot award damages, issue an injunction, or order anyone to stop doing anything. Where the practical harm is ongoing disruption rather than the existence of a registration, the Board cannot give you the remedy you need.

What is a Schedule A lawsuit?

A federal lawsuit, frequently in the Northern District of Illinois or a comparable venue, naming dozens or hundreds of sellers as defendants identified in a sealed schedule. The plaintiff typically obtains an ex parte TRO freezing marketplace accounts and payment processor balances before any defendant is served or heard. Deadlines move quickly, frozen funds are not released by appealing to the platform, and responding requires appearing in the federal case.

How do I know when a dispute is about to escalate?

Recognizable signals: a well-supported retraction demand ignored; repeat complaints across multiple listings or accounts indicating a campaign; correspondence from litigation counsel rather than a brand protection agency; a cease and desist demanding an accounting of past sales, which signals a damages theory; and a frozen account with no preceding platform complaint, which frequently means a court order already exists and service hasn't reached you.

Not sure which stage you're in?

Send us the complaint history and any correspondence from the rights holder. We'll tell you where the matter is heading and which forum can actually give you what you need.

IP Litigation Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Whether any claim or proceeding is available depends on the specific facts, the applicable law, and the forum. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Attorney advertising. Related: TRO defense · IP complaint defense · disputes overview

Trademark

Someone Opposed My Trademark Application. Now What?

It isn't a rejection, it isn't the end of the application, and it probably won't go to trial. But there is a deadline, and missing it costs you everything.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774 · August 2, 2026

Your application sailed through examination. It published. You were counting the weeks to registration. Then a notice of opposition arrives, referencing a company you've possibly never heard of, and the language reads like a lawsuit.

Two things to understand immediately, and they pull in opposite directions.

Your application was not rejected

The USPTO examining attorney approved it. That's why it published in the first place — publication for opposition is the step that follows successful examination.

An opposition is a third party stepping in to object before registration issues. Your application cleared examination on the merits, and the opposer now carries the burden of establishing grounds to prevent registration. That's a materially better starting position than a refusal from the Office.

But there is a deadline, and default is fatal

The Board's institution order sets your answer deadline. Extensions are commonly available on request — but they have to be requested.

If you do nothing, default judgment is entered and the application is refused. This is the single most common way applicants lose oppositions, and it is entirely avoidable. Applicants assume a proceeding will lapse if unattended, or that they can sort it out once things calm down, and lose applications they had a real chance of defending.

Find the answer deadline in the institution order before you do anything else — including reading the rest of this article.

Read the opposer's actual complaint, not their pleading style

Notices of opposition are drafted broadly. They tend to plead every available ground and describe your application as if it threatens the opposer's entire business. That's advocacy, not information.

The useful question is narrower: what does this party actually sell, and where does it genuinely overlap with what I sell?

Very often the answer is: barely. The opposer sells in an adjacent category, saw your application in a watch service, and filed defensively. Their real concern is that you'll expand into their space — not that your current products compete with theirs.

That gap between what's pleaded and what's actually at stake is where most oppositions get resolved.

Most oppositions settle, and here's the mechanism

The tool nobody mentions to sellers is the coexistence or consent agreement: a negotiated arrangement where both parties use their marks under defined limitations. Narrowing the goods each will offer. Restricting channels of trade. Agreeing on how the marks are presented.

Frequently the practical fix is even simpler — amending your identification of goods to exclude the overlap. If you applied broadly across a class but actually sell in one narrow slice of it, narrowing the identification to what you genuinely sell can eliminate the opposer's concern entirely.

You give up coverage you weren't using. They withdraw. Your application proceeds. Everyone spends a fraction of what a contested proceeding costs.

This is worth exploring early, because the cost curve in TTAB proceedings is steep. A matter that resolves before discovery costs a small share of one that runs through testimony periods and briefing.

When it's worth fighting

Sometimes settlement isn't available or isn't acceptable. Fighting makes sense where the opposer's mark is genuinely weak, where their claimed priority doesn't hold up, where the marks and goods are actually far enough apart that confusion is unlikely, or where the coverage they're asking you to give up is coverage you actually need.

A contested opposition runs like federal civil litigation conducted almost entirely on paper: pleadings, discovery including document requests and depositions, evidence submitted during assigned testimony periods, briefing, and occasionally oral argument. The Board can refuse registration but cannot award damages or issue an injunction.

Can you keep selling meanwhile?

An opposition concerns whether your application proceeds to registration. It is not an injunction and doesn't by itself prohibit use.

The caveat matters though. If the opposer holds prior rights that your use actually infringes, they have remedies in federal court that are entirely separate from the opposition. And aggressively expanding into contested territory while a proceeding is pending complicates both your settlement posture and any later litigation. Whether continued use is prudent depends on how strong their rights really are.

First moves

Calendar the answer deadline. Everything else is secondary.

Pull the opposer's mark and their actual commercial footprint. Registration record, specimens, what they really sell, where they really sell it.

Compare their goods against yours honestly. Not against your ambitions — against what you sell today.

Assess whether narrowing your identification would resolve it. If yes, that conversation should happen early, while it's still cheap.

Don't contact the opposer directly before you've done the above. An unconsidered communication in a contested proceeding is evidence.

Frequently asked

What happens if I ignore a notice of opposition?

Default judgment is entered and the application is refused. This is the most common way applicants lose an opposition and it is entirely avoidable. The answer deadline is set by the Board's institution order, and extensions are commonly available on request — but they have to be requested. Applicants who assume a proceeding will lapse if unattended lose applications they had a genuine chance of defending.

Does an opposition mean my trademark was rejected?

No. The USPTO examining attorney already approved the application — that's why it published. An opposition is a third party objecting before registration issues. Your application cleared examination on the merits, and the opposer bears the burden of establishing grounds to prevent registration. It's a contested proceeding, not a refusal by the Office.

How much does defending an opposition cost?

The range is wide because it depends almost entirely on whether and when the matter settles. Early resolution through withdrawal, consent, or coexistence costs a fraction of a proceeding that runs through discovery, testimony, and briefing. Most oppositions settle, frequently because the opposer's actual concern is narrower than their pleading and can be addressed by amending the identification of goods.

What is a coexistence agreement?

A negotiated arrangement in which both parties agree to use their marks under defined limitations — narrowing goods, restricting channels of trade, or agreeing on presentation. In many oppositions the opposer doesn't want your application dead; they want assurance you won't expand into their space. Where that's the real concern, amending the identification to exclude the overlap can resolve the whole proceeding faster and far more cheaply.

Can I keep using my brand while the opposition is pending?

An opposition concerns whether your application proceeds to registration. It is not an injunction and doesn't by itself prohibit use. But if the opposer holds prior rights your use actually infringes, they have separate remedies in federal court, and expanding aggressively into contested territory during a proceeding complicates both settlement and any later litigation. Whether continued use is prudent depends on the strength of their rights.

Send us the notice of opposition.

We'll assess the opposer's actual rights, tell you whether narrowing your identification resolves it, and answer before the deadline — which is the part that can't wait.

Opposition Defense Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Deadlines, available grounds, and procedure depend on the Board's order in your proceeding and on rules that change. Attorney advertising. Related: TTAB attorneys · cancellation · trademark registration

Brand Registry rejected you? The seven reasons it usually happens — AMZ Sellers Attorney®

Brand Protection

Brand Registry Rejected You. Here Are the Seven Usual Reasons.

The rejection message rarely tells you what actually failed. Some of these you can fix this afternoon. One of them means someone else has your brand.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774 · August 2, 2026

Brand Registry rejections are frustrating in a specific way: the message tells you that you failed without telling you what failed. So sellers resubmit the same application, get the same rejection, and conclude the system is arbitrary.

It usually isn't. In our experience nearly every rejection traces to one of seven causes, and the diagnosis is done by comparing your application against the trademark record field by field.

1. The brand name doesn't literally match the mark

The most common cause and the easiest to miss, because the comparison is literal. The name you enter has to correspond to the mark exactly as it appears on the trademark record.

What breaks it: an added or omitted space. A hyphen. Punctuation. A suffix like Inc or LLC that's on one and not the other. A stylization difference. A design element in the registration that isn't in your entered text.

Sellers enter the brand as they market it rather than as it was registered. Pull up the trademark record and copy the mark exactly as it reads there — character for character.

2. The trademark owner isn't the Seller Central account holder

The mark is registered to you personally and the account is an LLC. Or it's registered to a holding company and the account is the operating entity. Or it was registered before a name change that was never recorded with the USPTO.

Amazon is checking whether the party enrolling is the party that owns the mark. Where the two genuinely are the same business under different names, the fix is usually recording the correct ownership with the USPTO — an assignment or a change of name — rather than arguing the point with Amazon.

3. The images don't show the mark on the product

Amazon generally wants to see the brand permanently affixed to the product or its packaging, photographed on the physical goods.

What tends to fail: digital mockups, images with the logo overlaid in editing software, temporary labels, hangtags applied for the photo, and renders.

The purpose is demonstrating a genuine branded product rather than a name applied to generic goods. Worth noting the symmetry here — the same evidentiary weakness that defeats an enrollment is what can later support a challenge to a registration obtained on a fabricated specimen.

4. The trademark is pending, not registered

The standard registration-based path contemplates an issued registration, although Brand Registry accepts application serial numbers.

5. The registration is in the wrong class

Trademark registrations cover specified classes of goods and services. A registration covering apparel doesn't cover the kitchen products you're actually selling.

This happens when a seller registers early for one product line and later expands, or when the application was drafted without much attention to what the business would eventually sell. The fix is usually a new application in the correct class, which means time — one reason it's worth having someone who knows the catalog draft the identification of goods in the first place.

6. The verification code went to your attorney

Amazon's verification commonly routes a code to the correspondent of record on the trademark file — which is frequently the attorney or filing agent who handled the application, not the seller.

Sellers wait for an email that was never coming to them, assume the application stalled, and start over. Worse, sellers who used a cheap online filing service sometimes find that the correspondent is a company that no longer responds, at which point updating the correspondence address on the trademark record becomes the actual task.

Check who the correspondent of record is before assuming the code was lost.

7. Someone else already enrolled your brand

This is the one that isn't an enrollment defect, and no amount of resubmitting will touch it.

If another party holds a registration for your brand name and has enrolled it, the enrollment is the symptom and the registration is the cause. Fixing it means addressing the registration itself — opposition, cancellation, expungement, or reexamination depending on facts and timing.

Sellers in this position frequently also start receiving IP complaints filed by the enrolled party against their own listings, which runs on a much shorter clock than any USPTO proceeding and has to be managed in parallel. We wrote about that scenario in detail in Someone Trademarked My Brand.

How to diagnose which one you have

Open the trademark record and your enrollment application side by side. Compare, in this order: the mark as written, the owner of record against your Seller Central entity, the classes against your actual products, the registration status, and the correspondent of record.

Then look at your images with a stranger's eye and ask whether they show a real branded product or a logo placed on a photograph.

If everything lines up and it still fails, search the register for your brand name owned by someone else. That's cause seven, and it's a different conversation.

Frequently asked

Why was my Brand Registry application rejected?

Recurring causes: the brand name doesn't literally match the mark on the trademark record, the trademark owner isn't the Seller Central account holder, images don't show the mark permanently affixed to the goods, the trademark is pending rather than registered, the registration is in a class that doesn't cover your products, the verification code went to the attorney of record, or another party has already enrolled the brand. Amazon rarely identifies which — the diagnosis is done by comparing field by field.

Can I enroll with a pending trademark application?

Amazon has at times provided routes accommodating pending applications, including through IP Accelerator, but the standard registration-based path contemplates an issued registration. Confirm current criteria with Amazon directly rather than relying on secondhand accounts, since program terms change. Where pending is your only basis, the question is usually whether to wait or pursue an alternative given how urgently you need the tools.

Why does Amazon say my brand name doesn't match my trademark?

Because the comparison is literal. Small differences defeat it: an added or omitted space, a hyphen, punctuation, a suffix like Inc or LLC, a stylization difference, or a design element in the registration that isn't in your entered text. Sellers enter the brand as they market it rather than as registered. Copy the mark exactly as it reads on the record.

What packaging images does Brand Registry require?

Generally, images showing the brand permanently affixed to the product or packaging, photographed on physical goods rather than rendered. Digital mockups, overlaid logos, temporary labels, and hangtags applied for the photo tend to fail. The purpose is demonstrating a genuine branded product rather than a name applied to generic goods.

What if another party has already enrolled my brand?

That's a different and more serious problem, and resubmitting won't resolve it. If another party holds a registration and has enrolled it, the enrollment is the symptom and the registration is the cause. Fixing it requires addressing the registration through opposition, cancellation, expungement, or reexamination depending on facts and timing — and those sellers frequently also face IP complaints on a much shorter clock.

Rejected more than once? Stop resubmitting.

Send us the trademark registration number and the rejection. We'll identify which of the seven applies — and tell you whether it's a paperwork fix or a rights problem.

Brand Registry Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Amazon Brand Registry enrollment criteria are set by Amazon and change — confirm current requirements directly. Attorney advertising. Related: trademark registration · IP Accelerator alternative · hijacker removal

Copyright

Someone Filed a Copyright Complaint on My Product Photos. Do I Even Own Them?

Uncomfortable question, and for most sellers the answer is no. Here is why paying for photography usually doesn't transfer the copyright — and why that matters enormously before you file a counter-notice.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774 · August 2, 2026

A copyright complaint lands on your listing. Your first instinct is that this is obviously wrong — you paid for those photos, you have the invoice, they're yours.

Before you act on that instinct, sit with a harder question: did you ever actually acquire the copyright?

Paying for a photo doesn't buy the copyright

Under US copyright law, the person who creates a work generally owns the copyright in it. Payment doesn't transfer that by itself. What you bought, absent something more, was a photograph — not the exclusive rights in it.

There are two routes by which a commissioning party ends up owning the work, and freelance product photography usually fits neither.

Work made for hire covers employees creating works within the scope of employment. Your in-house marketing person, yes. A contractor you found on a freelance platform, no.

Work made for hire also covers certain specifically enumerated categories of commissioned works — and only where the parties sign a written agreement expressly designating the work as made for hire. The statutory list is narrow and does not comfortably accommodate ordinary product photography.

Which leaves written assignment. A transfer of copyright ownership generally has to be in writing and signed by the owner. Not implied from an invoice. Not inferred from the fact that you paid. Not established by a Slack message saying "all yours."

Most sellers who commissioned photos three years ago through a freelance marketplace have an invoice, a delivery of files, and a friendly email thread. What they do not have is a signed assignment. The photographer still owns the copyright — and in the right circumstances, can enforce it.

The supplier images problem

The other common origin story: the images came with the product data from a manufacturer or wholesaler. Everybody in the category uses them. Nobody ever discussed rights.

That works fine right up until the commercial relationship changes. A supplier who decides to sell direct, or who signs an exclusive with a different distributor, suddenly has both a reason and the standing to file. What felt like an informal industry norm turns out to have been an undocumented permission that nobody wrote down and nobody agreed would survive.

The questions that matter: was there permission at all, what was its scope, and does it survive the end of the relationship? If none of that was documented, the seller is arguing about an implied license — a much weaker position than owning the images outright.

Why this matters before you counter-notice

A counter-notice looks like a form. It isn't.

It is a statement made under penalty of perjury that the material was removed as a result of mistake or misidentification. And it typically requires you to consent to the jurisdiction of a federal district court and to accept service of process from the complaining party.

Read that again in plain terms. You are telling the complainant where to sue you, and confirming you'll take the papers.

Where you genuinely hold the rights and the complaint is baseless, that is exactly the right move and the jurisdictional consent is a price worth paying. Where you have simply assumed you own images you never received an assignment for, you have made a sworn statement on a premise you never checked and invited a lawsuit from someone who may actually hold the copyright.

Section 512(f) cuts both ways

The Copyright Act provides a remedy against a party who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing. It can also reach a knowing material misrepresentation in a counter-notice.

Two practical takeaways. Courts have generally read "knowingly" demandingly, so this is not a routine remedy against every mistaken complaint — sellers hoping to punish a competitor for a sloppy filing usually overestimate it. But it is a real provision, and it is worth preserving evidence where a competitor appears to be filing complaints they know to be groundless. It also cuts the other way: your own counter-notice is a place where a knowing misstatement carries consequences.

What to do when the complaint arrives

Identify exactly which images are accused. Complaints often sweep in an entire listing when only one image is at issue.

Trace the origin of each one. Who took it, when, under what arrangement, and is there anything signed? This is the step sellers skip, and it determines everything downstream.

Find out who the complainant is. A photographer asserting their own work, a supplier, a competitor, or a stock agency are four very different problems with four different resolutions.

Don't file a counter-notice on an assumption. Verify ownership first. If you can't, that answer is itself useful.

Sometimes the right answer is to reshoot

We'd rather say this plainly than sell a fight that doesn't make sense. Where you can't establish clean ownership, commissioning new photographs under a proper written assignment resolves the listing problem, eliminates the recurrence risk permanently, and usually costs less than a dispute.

Fighting makes sense where you do hold the rights, where the complaint is part of a pattern of competitive abuse, or where accepting the strike carries account health consequences that outweigh the cost of contesting it.

And whichever way this one goes: get written assignments for every image going forward. One paragraph in the engagement, signed before the shoot. It is the cheapest legal document in e-commerce and almost nobody has it.

Frequently asked

Do I own the product photos I paid a photographer to take?

Often not. The creator generally owns the copyright, and payment alone doesn't transfer it. Work made for hire covers employees within the scope of employment, and certain enumerated categories of commissioned work where the parties sign a written agreement designating it as such. A freelance product photographer usually falls outside both, so the copyright stays with them absent a signed written assignment.

What does filing a counter-notice actually commit me to?

More than most sellers realize. It is a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification, and it typically requires consenting to federal district court jurisdiction and accepting service of process from the complainant. You are telling them where to sue you and confirming you'll take the papers. Right move where you hold the rights — a serious step on an unverified assumption.

Can I be liable for a false copyright complaint filed against me?

The exposure runs the other way. Section 512(f) provides a remedy against a party who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, and can reach a knowing misrepresentation in a counter-notice too. Courts have read "knowingly" demandingly, so it's not routine against every mistaken complaint — but it's real, and worth preserving evidence where a competitor is filing complaints they know are groundless.

Can a supplier claim copyright in the photos on my listing?

Frequently, and it's one of the most common sources of these complaints. Sellers build listings from images supplied by manufacturers, sometimes with permission and sometimes just because they arrived with the product data. Where the supplier holds the copyright, the seller has been using licensed or unlicensed material — and a change in the relationship can convert an informal arrangement into a complaint. Scope and survival of any permission matter.

Should I just replace the images instead of fighting?

In a meaningful share of cases, yes. Where you can't establish clean ownership, newly commissioned photographs under a written assignment resolve the listing problem, eliminate recurrence risk, and cost less than a dispute. Fighting makes sense where you do hold the rights, where the complaint is part of a pattern of competitive abuse, or where the account health consequences outweigh the cost of contesting.

Before you counter-notice, find out if you own the images.

Send us the complaint and whatever documentation exists for the photos. We'll tell you whether you have standing to contest it — and whether contesting it is the right call.

DMCA & Counter-Notice Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Copyright ownership, the availability of any defense, and the consequences of a counter-notice depend on the specific facts and documents. Attorney advertising. Related: copyright services · IP complaint defense · sabotage survival guide

Patent

Can You Kill a Bad Patent? Reexamination, IPR, and Why Winning APEX Isn't Enough

If the same weak patent keeps coming back at you, defending each complaint is treating symptoms. Here is what it takes to go after the patent itself — and when that math actually works.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774, with Michael S. Brandt, USPTO Reg. No. 39119 · August 2, 2026

A pattern we see: a seller wins an APEX evaluation, feels relief, and four months later gets hit by the same patent owner on a different ASIN. Then again. Then a competitor in the same category calls with the same problem and the same patent number.

At that point the seller is no longer solving a listing problem. They are paying rent to a patent that may not have deserved to issue.

Infringement and validity are separate fights

This distinction governs everything else, and sellers collapse it constantly.

Infringement asks whether your product falls within the claims. That is the APEX question, and it is the question in most listing disputes.

Validity asks whether the patent should have issued at all — whether the claimed invention was already known or obvious in light of what came before.

Winning on infringement leaves the patent standing and available for the next assertion. Winning on validity removes it. That is why the two paths have such different costs and timelines: one resolves a dispute, the other removes a weapon.

The APEX evaluator cannot consider validity. Neither can Amazon. If the real problem is that the patent shouldn't exist, no marketplace process will ever fix it — that fight happens at the USPTO or in federal court.

Route one: ex parte reexamination

Anyone can ask the USPTO to reconsider an issued patent based on prior art — patents and printed publications — that raises a substantial new question of patentability. The Office decides whether that threshold is met and, if so, reexamines the claims.

The defining feature is in the name. It is ex parte: once instituted, the proceeding runs largely between the Office and the patent owner, and the requester steps back. That has two consequences sellers should weigh in opposite directions.

Cheaper and lower-profile. No discovery, no hearing, no sustained litigation posture. And in appropriate circumstances the requester need not be publicly identified — meaningful when you don't want to hand a patent owner your name and an infringement theory.

You lose control. You cannot respond when the patent owner argues around your art. And the patent owner can amend the claims during reexamination, which sometimes produces a narrower patent that survives — one that may or may not still read on your product. That is a real risk, not a footnote.

Route two: inter partes review

IPR is the contested proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. You petition, you participate throughout, there is discovery and briefing and an oral hearing, and you argue your art rather than handing it over and hoping.

It is a genuinely powerful tool. It is also substantially more expensive, and it carries two features that make it the wrong instrument for most marketplace sellers.

Estoppel. A petitioner who receives a final written decision is barred from later raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised. Lose an IPR and you have narrowed your own defenses in any subsequent litigation. That is a serious commitment.

Timing bars. There is a window measured from service of an infringement complaint, and it closes. A seller who has been sued and waits may find the option gone entirely.

The prior art constraint nobody mentions

Both proceedings are limited to patents and printed publications. This is where seller cases most often fall apart, and it is worth understanding before you spend anything.

Sellers frequently know, with certainty, that the claimed invention was already being sold years before the patent was filed. Sometimes they were selling it. That knowledge is genuinely valuable — but it has to be documented to be usable here.

What works: dated catalogs, product manuals, archived web pages, dated marketplace listings, trade publications, technical articles, earlier patents and published applications, academic literature.

What doesn't, in these proceedings: the physical product on your shelf, your recollection, a supplier's word that they've made it for a decade.

So the first real question in any validity challenge is not "is this patent bad." It is "can we prove it was bad using documents that existed before the filing date." Those are different questions and only one of them is answerable by searching.

Choosing between them

Ex parte reexamination tends to fit where the art is strong enough to speak for itself, cost matters, anonymity is valuable, and you are not already in litigation.

IPR tends to fit where the stakes justify the spend, the art needs advocacy rather than just presentation, you are already litigating, and you can accept estoppel.

Neither fits where the art is thin, where the dispute is really about infringement rather than validity, or where the economics don't support it — which brings us to the honest part.

When it isn't worth it

For a single accused listing, a validity challenge is almost always the wrong tool. It costs more and takes longer than resolving the dispute on non-infringement, and the outcome is uncertain.

The math starts working when:

• The same patent has been asserted against you more than once
• It reads on a product category you sell in, not one item
• Multiple sellers are affected and can share the cost — this is more common and more workable than sellers assume
• The revenue at stake makes permanently removing the threat worth more than defending repeatedly
• The prior art is genuinely strong and genuinely documented

If none of those apply, defend the listing and move on. We will say so.

Frequently asked

What is ex parte reexamination?

A USPTO proceeding in which anyone may ask the Office to reconsider an issued patent based on prior art consisting of patents and printed publications, where the request raises a substantial new question of patentability. Once instituted it runs largely between the Office and the patent owner, with limited further participation by the requester — which makes it considerably cheaper than IPR and, in appropriate circumstances, allows the requester to remain unidentified.

What is inter partes review and how is it different?

A contested proceeding before the PTAB where the petitioner participates throughout, with discovery, briefing, and an oral hearing. Substantially more expensive than reexamination, and it carries statutory estoppel — a petitioner receiving a final written decision is barred from later raising grounds that were or reasonably could have been raised. There are also timing bars, including a window measured from service of an infringement complaint.

Can I challenge a patent anonymously?

Ex parte reexamination can in appropriate circumstances be requested without the challenger being publicly identified as the real party in interest — one reason sellers choose it when they don't want to invite an infringement suit. IPR requires identification of all real parties in interest and is not anonymous. Whether anonymity is available and advisable turns on the facts and should be assessed by patent counsel.

What kind of prior art can be used?

Both proceedings are limited to patents and printed publications. Evidence that a product was on the market before the patent was filed is powerful but generally has to be captured in a document — a catalog, manual, dated marketplace listing, archived web page, trade publication, or technical article. Physical products and personal recollection alone do not fit these proceedings, though they may be usable in litigation.

Is challenging a patent worth it for a single listing?

Usually not. It's expensive and slow relative to resolving one dispute, and the cheaper path for a single accused product is normally a non-infringement position in the Amazon evaluation. It starts making sense when the same patent is asserted repeatedly, when it covers a category rather than one item, when multiple affected sellers can share cost, or when the revenue at stake makes permanently removing the threat worth more than defending repeatedly.

Send us the patent number.

Our USPTO-registered patent attorney will assess whether documented prior art exists, which route the facts support, and whether the economics justify going after the patent instead of the complaint.

Reexamination Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Availability of particular proceedings, timing bars, estoppel consequences, and USPTO fees depend on the specific facts and are subject to change. Attorney advertising. Related: APEX defense · patent services · IP litigation

Patent

You Got an APEX Notice. You Have Three Options and One of Them Is a Trap.

Accept, opt out, or participate. Each door leads somewhere different, the deadline is short, and the one that sounds like relief is often the one that invites a lawsuit.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774, with Michael S. Brandt, USPTO Reg. No. 39119 · August 2, 2026

An APEX notice arrives without warning and gives you a short window to decide something consequential. Most sellers read it once, feel the deadline, and pick whichever option seems least frightening. That is the wrong basis for the decision, because the three options don't differ in difficulty — they differ in where they leave you six months from now.

What APEX actually is

Amazon Patent Evaluation Express is a private, fast-track proceeding. A utility patent owner alleges that your product infringes. A neutral third-party evaluator — typically a patent attorney — reviews written submissions from both sides and decides whether the accused listing infringes the asserted claims.

Three things it is not. It is not a court proceeding. It does not adjudicate validity — the evaluator takes the patent as issued and asks only about infringement. And it does not produce a binding judgment between the parties. What it does determine, quite decisively, is whether your listing stays up.

Both sides post a deposit, and the prevailing side generally gets theirs back. Check the current amount and the exact response deadline in the notice you received rather than relying on any figure you read online, including here — Amazon adjusts the program.

The deadline runs from the date of the notice, not from the date you noticed it. Sellers lose listings to inbox triage more often than to the merits. Find the response date the moment the notice arrives, before you decide anything else.

Option one: do nothing

Technically not an option, but it is what happens most often, so it belongs on the list. The accused listings generally come down by default. No evaluator considers the merits. No deposit is at risk because none was posted.

The trap here is that doing nothing feels like a neutral holding position — as if the matter stays open and you can address it later. It doesn't. The listing is gone, and the patent owner has learned that filing an APEX against you works.

Option two: opt out — the one that's usually a trap

Opting out removes the dispute from Amazon's process. Sellers reach for it because it sounds like escaping an unfair private tribunal. Two things they miss:

It does not preserve your listing. Opting out of the evaluation does not resolve the underlying complaint in your favor.

It does not make the patent owner go away. It removes the cheap, fast, contained forum and leaves the expensive, slow, uncontained one — federal court. A patent owner who was willing to spend a modest deposit on an evaluation may now be looking at a seller who has declined the low-cost process, and some read that as an invitation.

Opting out is a legitimate strategic choice in specific circumstances: where you are prepared to defend the patent claim in federal court, where a declaratory judgment action is contemplated, or where the patent is weak enough that a broader challenge to validity makes sense. Those are deliberate decisions made with counsel who has read the patent.

It is a poor choice made simply to dodge a deadline or avoid a deposit.

Option three: participate

You post the deposit and submit a written response arguing non-infringement. The evaluator considers both submissions and decides.

For a seller with a genuine non-infringement position, this is frequently the best available option: it is fast, contained, far cheaper than litigation, and a favorable evaluation resolves the listing problem directly.

The catch is what "a genuine non-infringement position" means, because it is narrower than sellers expect.

What the evaluator is actually asking

One question: does the accused product contain every element of at least one asserted claim, as those claim terms are properly construed?

That is it. Which means the arguments sellers instinctively reach for are, in this forum, entirely beside the point:

• "My product looks different" — irrelevant unless the difference maps onto a claim element
• "I bought it from a legitimate supplier" — sourcing is not a defense to patent infringement
• "This patent shouldn't have issued" — validity is not before the evaluator
• "They're using this to knock out competitors" — motive is not an element
• "I've been selling this for years" — prior use by you is not a defense here

A response built on any of those loses, not because the evaluator is unfair, but because it never addressed the question. Winning requires reading the claims, construing the terms, and showing that at least one element is missing from your product. That is patent work, and it is why the response needs a patent attorney rather than an appeal consultant.

Winning APEX doesn't kill the patent

Worth internalizing before you celebrate. A favorable evaluation means the evaluator concluded your product likely doesn't infringe. The patent remains in force. The owner can assert it against your next product, against a modified version, or in federal court where validity is on the table.

Conversely, losing APEX does not mean the patent has been adjudicated valid — you simply lost an infringement assessment.

Where the underlying patent is genuinely weak — where the claimed invention was already in the market, or the prior art is obvious — the durable fix is challenging validity at the USPTO through reexamination. Different proceeding, different economics, different timeline. But if the same patent is being asserted against you repeatedly, or against a whole category you sell in, winning APEX each time is treating symptoms.

What to do in the first 48 hours

Find the deadline. Everything else is secondary.

Pull the patent. Not the complaint — the actual patent, and specifically the claims. The independent claims are where the analysis starts.

Identify the accused ASINs precisely. Patent owners sometimes sweep in listings that don't practice the claim at all.

Get a claim chart before you decide. Element-by-element, claim language against your product. That chart tells you whether you have a non-infringement position — and therefore which of the three doors makes sense. Deciding before you have it is guessing.

Don't modify the listing hoping it goes away. It doesn't, and it can complicate the record.

Frequently asked

What is Amazon APEX?

A private, fast-track proceeding in which a utility patent owner alleges infringement, a neutral third-party evaluator reviews written submissions from both sides, and the evaluator decides whether the accused listing infringes. It is not a court proceeding, does not adjudicate validity, and does not create a binding judgment — but it determines whether the listing stays up.

What happens if I ignore an APEX notice?

The accused listings are generally removed by default. Ignoring is not a neutral choice and is not the same as opting out. The deadline runs from the date of the notice, not from when you noticed it, and a seller who misses it has usually lost the listing without the merits ever being considered.

Should I opt out of APEX?

Only deliberately. Opting out removes the dispute from Amazon's process but does not preserve the listing and does not make the patent owner go away — it substitutes federal court for a cheap contained forum. It is reasonable where you're prepared to litigate, where a declaratory judgment action is contemplated, or where the patent warrants a validity challenge. It is a poor choice made to avoid a deadline or a deposit.

Does winning APEX mean the patent is invalid?

No. The evaluator decides only whether your product likely infringes the asserted claims. Validity isn't before them. You can win on non-infringement and face the same patent again, and losing does not mean the patent was adjudicated valid. Where the patent is genuinely weak, reexamination at the USPTO addresses validity — a different proceeding entirely.

Why does an APEX response need a patent attorney?

Because the evaluation turns on claim construction and element-by-element comparison, not policy argument. Arguing that your product is different, that you sourced it legitimately, or that the complaint is unfair does not engage the question the evaluator is asking. The accused product has to be assessed against the claim language, and that is patent work.

Send us the patent number and the notice.

Our USPTO-registered patent attorney will build the claim chart and tell you which of the three options your facts actually support — before the deadline decides for you.

APEX Defense Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. APEX program terms, deposit amounts, and deadlines are set by Amazon and change — follow the notice you received. Attorney advertising. Related: APEX timeline · appealing an APEX decision · reexamination

Trademark

Someone Trademarked My Brand. In the US, That May Not Matter.

You sold under the name for years and never registered it. Now a stranger holds the certificate — and is filing complaints against your listings. Here is why being first to use can beat being first to file.

By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774 · August 2, 2026

The call usually starts the same way. A seller built a brand, sold under it for three or four years, never got around to registering it because things were working. Then a stranger's registration appears on the USPTO database — and shortly after, IP complaints start landing on their own listings.

Most sellers assume the fight is over. It usually isn't.

The rule most sellers get backwards

Many countries run first-to-file systems: register first, own the mark, full stop. Sellers who come from those systems — or who absorbed the idea from a forum post — assume the United States works the same way.

It doesn't. In the US, trademark rights arise from use in commerce. Registration is genuinely valuable, but it is evidence of a right rather than the origin of one. A party who used the mark in US commerce before the registrant filed may hold superior rights and may petition the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the registration under Section 14 of the Lanham Act.

Be clear-eyed about what the other side does have. A registration gives them a presumption of nationwide ownership, shifts the evidentiary burden onto you, and — critically — satisfies the registration-based criteria for Amazon Brand Registry. It is not nothing, and treating it as nothing is how sellers lose winnable cases through overconfidence.

Your EU or Canadian registration does not help you here

This is the most expensive misunderstanding we see from brand owners outside the United States. Trademark rights are territorial. EUIPO, UKIPO, CIPO, and CNIPA registrations confer exactly zero rights in the US.

It cuts both ways, and both directions hurt. Against you: when a third party registers your brand domestically, you generally cannot defeat that registration by producing your European certificate — the Board wants to know what you did in US commerce and when. Against them: your foreign registration also won't stop a US seller from adopting the same name here in good faith.

There is a further wrinkle worth understanding, because it explains how these registrations issue in the first place. US law permits a registration to issue to a foreign applicant based on a home-country registration under Section 44, or through a Madrid Protocol extension — without the applicant ever having sold anything in the United States. These are legitimate statutory routes used properly every day. But a registration obtained this way, sitting on the register while the registrant does no genuine US business, is substantially more vulnerable than one backed by years of real commerce.

The five-year cliff

Timing matters more here than in most legal problems, and the reason is structural.

Within five years of registration, you can seek cancellation on essentially any ground that would have barred registration in the first place — including likelihood of confusion with your prior-used mark. That is the core priority ground and usually the strongest argument a prior user has.

After five years, Section 14 narrows the grounds to a defined statutory list: abandonment, fraud, genericness, functionality, certain misuse. Ordinary likelihood of confusion based on your prior use is no longer available.

Sellers routinely discover a hijacked registration, feel overwhelmed, and set it aside to deal with when things calm down. That instinct is expensive here. The clock runs from the registration date, not from the date you found out — and the ground you most want is the one that disappears.

Two cheaper routes most sellers have never heard of

A contested TTAB cancellation is not the only tool, and it is frequently not the right first tool. The Trademark Modernization Act created two ex parte proceedings — meaning the challenge runs between you and the USPTO rather than against an opposing party litigating the schedule.

Expungement targets a registration where the mark was never used in US commerce for the registered goods. Reexamination targets a registration where the mark was not in use as of the relevant date, even if it was used at some other point. Both skip discovery entirely. Both are dramatically cheaper than contested cancellation.

Both are also available only during defined windows measured from the registration date, so the same timing discipline applies. We check the registration file before anything else, every time, because the cheapest available route should be evaluated before anyone files a contested proceeding.

The Brand Registry problem makes this urgent

Here is what turns a slow legal problem into an emergency. A federal registration generally satisfies Brand Registry enrollment criteria. So the party who registered your brand name can enroll it, take control of listing content and variations, and gain access to enforcement tools — including filing infringement complaints against the seller who actually built the brand.

You end up defending IP complaints on your own brand, filed by someone who never sold a unit of it, while your listings come down and your account health degrades.

That creates two clocks running at very different speeds. The platform clock runs in days and has to be managed through the marketplace's IP dispute process right now. The rights clock runs on USPTO timelines and is the actual fix. Sellers who address only the platform side keep losing listings to a capability that never goes away. Sellers who address only the rights side sometimes lose the account before the proceeding concludes. Both have to run at once.

What to do first — and what not to do

Do not contact the registrant yet. Not an angry message, not an offer to buy the mark. Premature contact tells them a challenge is coming, lets them prepare, and can prompt them to escalate marketplace complaints against you first. An unconsidered email can itself become evidence.

Gather dated proof of first use instead. Sales records showing the mark on real transactions. Supplier invoices bearing it. Marketplace listing histories. Archived captures of your site. Dated press coverage. Domain registration records. Third-party-held documents beat anything you could have created yesterday, and you need to establish continuous use — not just a first date — because a gap invites an abandonment argument against you.

Collect it now. Listing histories get truncated, web archives are incomplete, and suppliers go out of business and stop answering email. Every month of delay makes the record harder to assemble, and the evidence you can produce is the entire case.

Is it worth fighting?

It's an economic decision and an honest advisor should say so. Weigh the revenue attached to the brand, the strength of your documented prior use, whether the cheaper ex parte routes are open, and the realistic cost of rebranding — which includes lost review history, lost ranking, new packaging, and the real possibility that the same thing happens to the new name if you leave it unregistered again.

An established brand with substantial revenue and solid evidence of prior use is usually worth defending. A recently launched brand with modest sales and thin documentation is often better served by rebranding and registering properly this time.

Frequently asked

Does a registered trademark always beat an unregistered one?

No. Registration creates a presumption that the registrant owns the mark and holds the exclusive right to use it, and it shifts the burden onto the challenger. But the presumption is rebuttable. A party who used the mark in US commerce before the registrant's filing date or first use date may hold superior rights and may cancel the registration.

I have a trademark in the EU or Canada. Does that protect me in the US?

Not by itself. Trademark rights are territorial and a foreign registration confers no US rights. It won't stop a US seller from adopting the name domestically, and when someone registers your foreign mark here you generally can't defeat it by producing the foreign certificate. What matters is who used the mark in US commerce first, or whether the registration was obtained improperly.

How long do I have to cancel someone else's registration?

The grounds narrow substantially after five years on the Principal Register. Within five years you can seek cancellation on essentially any ground that would have barred registration, including likelihood of confusion with your prior-used mark. After five years, Section 14 limits the grounds to a defined list that excludes ordinary likelihood of confusion. Move well before the five-year mark.

How do I prove I used my brand first?

With dated, contemporaneous, third-party-verifiable documents: sales records showing the mark on real transactions, supplier invoices bearing it, marketplace listing histories, archived website captures, dated press coverage, domain records. Self-generated materials that could have been created at any time carry less weight. You must establish continuous use, not just a first date.

Should I contact the registrant and ask them to transfer the mark?

Not before you understand your position. Premature contact lets them prepare, can prompt them to escalate marketplace complaints first, and can itself become evidence. Negotiated transfer does resolve many of these matters — particularly where the registrant has no genuine US business — but establish your evidence and grounds first, then approach from a position where the demand carries consequences.

Send us the registration number.

We'll pull the file, identify the filing basis, check whether the cheaper ex parte windows are still open, and tell you honestly whether your evidence of prior use supports a challenge.

Trademark Cancellation Services Free Evaluation

General information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Trademark priority, available grounds, and applicable filing windows depend on the specific facts and the registration file, and the governing rules change. Attorney advertising. Related: expungement · opposition · Brand Registry