Let’s see how our reply flies …
Reply on NSFE:
Google: Can a amazon seller file a SAFE-T claim on a returned FBA order?
Apparently, it has yet to make any impression:
Admittedly, in one of the execrable “nested” replies, the OP mentions that one of the 4 Order IDs from this scumbag filmmaker was FBM/MFN - apparently, the latest one, after OP removed the FBA Offer-Listing - but the
most-recent of his/her ‘stand-alone’ replies, made 042426, clearly shows the 3 FBA Orders, and it’s not the only reply that mentions that status.
Poor ol’ Xander just can’t seem to wrap his/her/its noggin’ round the simple truth that FBA ≠ FBM.
He used to be alright. I’m wondering if that account has a new owner/operator. Because (sigh) this is something “Xander” used to be able to grasp.
I would second that without reservation.
In Q2 & Q3 of 2025, when the infamous “Pokemon Notebook/Balloon/Bubble Wand/Dollar Store Goods/novelty item Returns” scam was in full flower, Xander took the point on passing along information to the CCU (‘Amazonese’ for “Counterfeit Crimes Unit”); the simple fact that the uproarious furor over being subject to that particular “brushing” technique subsequently died out nearly completely would seem to suggest that his/her efforts were not in vain.
Count me among those who wouldn’t deny that that’s certainly a possibility, as Amazon has quite demonstrably been playin’ fast & loose with such tag-teaming, at the very least,* since this 061319 OSFE post (link, NSFE URL) and this 062619 OSFE thread (link, NSFE URL) - both cases where the former AHT SME Arthur_Amazon made a reply signed as “Bryson” (and in the latter case went back on 071219 & modified the original signature, after you yourself, among others of the forum vets, highlighted the discrepancy both there and elsewhere) - we’ve seen clear evidence of such
behaviour.
There is certainly credible evidence that this phenomenon has continued, intermittently, down to the present day; recent examples of which include the near-invariably helpful Sandy_Amazon’s ‘Serina signature Snafu’ (link, SAS) - amended 4 days later as a ‘typo’ (link, SAS) - and perhaps also by the seemingly-inexplicable shift in handles undertaken in Q1 2026 by Ammy/Amyy_Amazon (link, SAS).
Still, and not just because Xander was among the first members of the FMT-CMT I myself noticed supplying a ‘Cyrano-generated’ URL direction (link, SAS) to this or that of Amazon’s web resources - not to mention the sheer plentitude of examples to be found in more-recent posts by members of s/he/its cohort, of which I would likewise assert ARE (rather obviously, methinks, to even the fabled “Most-Casual of Observers”) most-likely to be attributable to Project Rainier-spawned GenAI/LLM deployments - it doesn’t currently appear to me that there’s much reason to suspect that Occam’s presumed take might not wind up hanging the hat of this matter upon that peg alone, no matter which Amazonian is actually operating this and that NSFE Posting Profile at any given hour of any given day.
*
There are earlier-posted examples of the same type of thing still-extant in my archives, but while I was cooling my heels waiting for Legal to sign off on my desire to join SAS, I found time to conduct some verifications that those examples were still visible in the NSFE, often enough with no success..
I miss Susan. She knew how to read.
Agreed.
AND how to get things done, @ least when Amazon would allow her the opportunity to do so…
Ken’s become the latest member of the FMT-CMT to recommend filing a SAFE-T Claim against an FBA Order ID:
If already mentions, please ignore.
And in “Handmade Category” FBM orders are not even eligible for Safe-T claims when you use the eligibility tool.
OK, but I get an email telling me about each refund issued to a customer for any reason, and it has an order number, so I have to make a list, and follow up on each individually, as there seems nothing that ties order numbers to reimbursements easily, unless there is a report I have missed.
That’s because you can’t file SAFE-T claims for FBA orders, you need to file a reimbursement claim with the information on the returned item like the LPN. Order numbers are neither needed nor useful when filing these claims.
The NSFE mod is spouting nonsense.
As our friend Hobbes astutely points out, FBA Orders are decidedly not eligible for SAFE-T Claims - a fact that Ken_Amazon would certainly know had s/he/it actually read the SHC (“Seller Help Content”) page linked in that post - the oft-retitled “Reimbursement for seller-fulfilled orders” @ https: //sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/202175000 - because it includes this statement, found in the ‘Orders ineligible for SAFE-T claims’ section:
That proviso has remained unchanged since @ least 052820 - more than seven years ago - so it’s not like the mods haven’t had had time to learn it…
That page is one of the many that I’m constrained to regularly archive, as it changes so frequently; when I checked it again today, as a result of Ken’s
off-kilter post, I saw that something new has been added to the ‘SAFE-T Coverage and Eligibility’ section since my last save of it on 020826:
As the primary reason given by the seasoned & savvy forum vets - to avoid the CSBA (“Customer Service By Amazon”) Program like the plague - is founded in the fact that its first-echelon/Tier I operatives typically issue full or partial refunds at the mere drop of a hat, this new development could prove a game-changer, if enforced.
The Refund Reason Code “Other concession” has existed, at the very least, since I first recorded its use on 062317 (and likely long before that, methinks), and I’d presume that it would be the most likely candidate for this sea-change - again, if it is actually enforced - but the cynic in me suspects we may well see Amazon balk on this published policy if the CSBA CSR doesn’t apply, exactly, whatever Code that Amazon decides to use.