Amazon Mod fires a shot across the bow of new sellers

I feel like a Sorority Sister tonight knowing that @its all nuts again and I got ‘pinned’ by @SEAmod on the NSFE.

Another newbie seller looking for trouble with Nike got my standard response starting with “If you try to sell those just start preparing your “please help with my Section 3 suspension” letter now. It will save you time when you get suspended.” @Brigitte noted they were lucky they were stopped but what surprised me the most was the response from @SEAmod which was exceedingly direct (for Amazon).

" Special recognition here for @NEVERLAST. I hope @StellarrMarkettook the information in stride. It might be loud, but sometimes that is the way to get, not just Stellarr’s attention, but the attention of other sellers who may learn from it."

Once it was pinned Its_all_Nuts_again added their valid information as well and got noted by @SEAmod also.

I’ve never been pinned before. I think I’m blushing…

Maybe some of the folks at Amazon ARE getting tired of sellers not educating themselves.


Seamod has been tired of hitting her head on the desk for quite some time now. I think the filter has come off a little and is missing the group of us that used to take care of this stuff (and then get flagged for it)


Since I do not expect to ever be on NTSE let me give you an attaboy here. I have one for Susan too if she ever decides to join SAS.


I will squeel my little green butt off if that ever happens! I hope it does if only so we could have an open line of communication with someone with sanity!


Kudos to @dwat0870 @Brigitte and @Nutty_Nuisance !

Something in SEAmod/Susan’s reply was interesting


Reselling on Amazon without a brand’s permission is a violation of the terms of service found here.

Where in the ASBA does it specific state that “reselling on Amazon without a brand’s [explicit?] permission is a violation”? I have searched and can’t find it, but I have not read the entire update closely recently.


If Susan joined SAS, it would either be under extreme cover, or post-Amazon employment–and wisely so. But she would be welcomed whatever the situation! :hugs:


In typical Amazon fashion they like to hide things in ‘different’ locations.

I’m glad you asked because I’ve been trying to figure out where to post THIS nugget of information that was posted there a couple days ago –

From @Atlas_amazon

For your sourcing, you mention acquiring product directly from the brand, do they also provide to you a letter of authorization? This document would need to explicitly state you have permission to list the product on the platform. As seen in our anti-counterfeit policy, inauthentic product can be product that has not been given explicit authorization to be listed on the platform.

If you have any additional details to share or questions regarding how to proceed, continue to refer here for support.



Amazon does their best work with smoke and mirrors. I truly believe everything is hidden and vague on purpose so that THEY have near total leeway to interpret and enforce as they see fit.


We thought your responses were impressive and enjoyed seeing your recognition from Susan.



Seems like at least some of "Susan"s responses are still Susan. I would still like to know who is posting the rest of “Susan” posts.


You always lose me with the Dwat/Neverlast conversion

1 Like

When I got ‘outed’ by Amazon when I was a guinea pig with the NSFE I changed my handle there to try and at least give a little cover to everything previously posted.

When I signed up over here I went back to my old name for this side.

After all is said and done and Amazon intending to link everything anyway it turns out to be a wasted effort anyway.

As my wife notes, I’m easily dist ------- SQUIRREL -------


I can’t find a reference ANYWHERE on Amazon (and that includes the BSA page linked) that officially says you must have a brand’s permission to sell on Amazon. The only references to that fact are from the numerous suspension posts saying that Amazon’s demanding a letter of authorization.

This leads back to Amazon intentionally setting the trap. They basically want RAs and grey market sellers, as they’re good for competition and good for lowering prices, but they also want to kick those sellers off as soon as there’s any hint of a problem.

1 Like

Amazon has evolved in ways that Bezos never anticipated with no central plan or grand design. It is a house of cards with multiple decks stacked and cobbled together so that their programmers can’t keep up or even find what rules, regs, and, policies are buried deep in their archives and never corrected or updated.

My contention for many months now is that Amazon and other websites have been placed in a very difficult situation by the changes in laws that Congress made stripping them of all protections that they THOUGHT they had from counterfeit/stolen items being sold on their sites.

This is my standard template that I use on the NSFE from time to time and I think it sums things up pretty well.

Amazon has allowed the site to be invaded by countless thousands of unauthorized sellers over the past couple decades. Amazon, to excise the disease (unauthorized sellers), is simply killing all the sellers other than whoever the BRANDS are going to favor with letters of authorization in GATED categories.

Expect more of this and it is partly a result of the new laws that have stripped Amazon and other sites of what they had perceived as protection from penalties for allowing counterfeit/stolen merchandise on the site.

Those restrictions will include both RA, Gray market sales, and even used sales in the future because there is no proof of authenticity or chain of custody for either version of those sales models.

Amazon is cleaning house and a lot of people selling currently are likely to be swept out the door going forward.

I fully expect that nearly all categories are heading toward being gated as a result.


I’m not against this


It doesn’t and could be viewed as a violation of anti-trust law. A real one.

The requirements for authorization are a by-product of anti-counterfeit actions. Any goods not purchased through authorized wholesale channels, “may be inauthentic”. And the only long distance means of avoiding this possibility is this method.

Ebay is attempting to expand the alternatives for certain items by hiring authenticators, and risking legal action from rights holders who wish to challenge the authentication.

Ebay sellers are starting to complain about authenticator decisions, and some buyers are too. An interesting phenomena to watch.

1 Like was the first, I believe, to do the marketplace authenticated angle, which is probably why ebay’s copying it.

It of course, is fraught with problems because at the end of the day it’s low paid workers making a potentially costly decision that ultimately has little impact on themselves. It’s not like authenticating whether a gold bar is actually gold, there’s machines that do that and they generally can’t be fooled. Having someone compare a product to images and written guidelines on what to look for, for thousands of different products is going to have a high enough error rate to generate serious complaints. It’s not like the brand themselves is doing it and have specialists examining single product lines who know those lines well.

And yes, broadly restricting sellers of all products down to single authorized sellers would likely run into some big anti-trust issues. Bear in mind that Amazon sellers themselves have faced criminal charges for colluding to price fix their shared products. Eliminating all competition and allowing one seller to solely set the price for a product without any real basis to take that action isn’t right. Even most 1P listings allow 3P sellers. The brands that are fully gated (by “fully gated” I mean there’s no option to even apply for approval) are ones that have demonstrated that there have been severe problems that can only be resolved by that type of gating.

That said, I think chinese sellers should not be allowed to list any products from a US owned brand. That would probably solve 90% of the problems on the platform.

I guess I’m just wondering about Susan making that very specific claim and then backing it up with the ASBA link. :thinking:

FWIW, I want to know so that the rest of us can do the same!

It’s to be found, directly, in the text of the ‘Introduction’ ¶ of the SHC’s Letter of Authorization (link, Help Hub Revision URL):

That’s supplemented by the penultimate sentence in the succeeding ‘What are Intellectual Property (IP) rights?’ ¶:

Indirectly, the same is to be legally understood from the text of the SHC’s Responsible Sourcing documentation request requirements (link, Help Hub Rev.).

I have thus far been unsuccessful in convincing the Editorial Team that the misspelling of the third instance there of the word “original” - rendered here as “xoriginal” - need be corrected, not only for propriety’s sake, but also because the judicial system is not much given to easing mistakes.

I do not lightly discount your thesis, re: there being a trap for the unwary - nor with the likelihood of it having been deliberately set with a cynical eye towards the profit potentialities to be reaped from those who stumble into the quicksand - but from Amazon’s legal position, it has the bases well-covered.


I guess, technically, that claim she made is true since Section 3 of the BSA says they can suspend you for basically any reason, and “any reason” could be because you failed to produce a LOA when demanded.

It’s an awfully thin claim though.


That is a really obscure page for something that’s so important.

It also mostly implies that a LOA is for trademark licensing, not for reselling products made by the trademark owner. This ambiguity is likely intentional as well, because if they wanted to they could clearly state “An LOA is required to resell trademarked products.” And it should be the first lesson in seller university.

I feel like this policy was written for the trademark licensing purpose, and seller performance just decided to apply LOA requirements to ALL IP complaints, not just ones involving unlicensed products. (And of course, did not update the policy)

1 Like