How many brain cells do you need to lose before you do this?

" Suspended for Inauthentic ADIDAS yet purchased from ADIDAS directly"
"Seller for over 10+ years. My Amazon seller account is suspended for selling authentic Adidas trainers that were purchased from Adidas brand directly. "

I will guarantee (99.99%) that they have not been on Amazon for that 10 years!

I usually interpret this to mean factory outlet store.


On the topic, of how many brain cells…

anyone else hire activ8 to run their store

they are now out of business and have left me with orders that amazon needs invoices for and i have no way of sourcing anything to appeal my case

Sometimes there’s just no point in advising. Like leading blind people part way across the freeway.


There’s at least ONE of these every day. “Too busy” to run my Amazon store. SMDH.



According to they have (almost…).

1 Like

It makes sense they’ve been around for a long time.

To be ungated for adidas without documentation you must’ve been grandfathered in a long long time ago.

I’m auto-approved for almost every brand I try, but adidas is not one of them. Neither are lego, nike, or disney. Apple I can’t even apply for.

1 Like

And unless they just migrated to the new Forum, this was their very first post!

You know that saying about leading a horse to water?

On Amazon their version is “We can allow someone to sell on the site but they never have to learn the rules.”

It’s PAST time that sellers need to actually pass some test to demonstrate that they have at least a SMALL amount of knowledge of policy.


I almost feel like Amazon allows it intentionally. They let RAs operate without asking for any docs, then at some random point they accuse them of selling fakes and ask for docs, and when they’re not provided Amazon seizes their funds and inventory, and pads their stats for their annual brand protection report.

Even a simple questionnaire type auto-approval like such:

Do you have a Letter of Authorization from Brand XYZ authorizing you to sell their products on Amazon?

Would give a lot of sellers the hint that maybe they need to study the policies prior to listing this item. They don’t need to require that people actually submit the LOA for review (which would create a lot of work on Amazon’s end), but they should at least require them to acknowledge that they have this document if it’s ever requested.

The other crazy thing is you can get ungated with an invoice, but an invoice isn’t accepted as proof of authenticity for some IP violations. That’s a big trap for a lot of people. Common sense would say if Amazon accepts the invoice for ungating, then that’s acceptable as proof of authenticity or proof of whatever other issue comes up, which USED to be the case but is not so anymore.


You would think they could take the hint. However, as a higher education instructor, I see all the time where people just want to take the quick and easy road to course completion. Fewer and fewer people are willing to put in the effort to actually learn and understand. After all, we can now Google everything if we ever need to answer some question we don’t know.


Amazon makes it very clear that products need to be authentic. They do not make it very clear what someone needs in order to prove that. (Until someone’s facing suspension and Amazon demands specific documentation)

A lot of these forum posts are made by people who think buying products from walmart is fine because “walmart wouldn’t sell counterfeit products.” It’s also possible to find outdated information online saying that receipts are acceptable proof of authenticity because that actually used to be the case.

1 Like

Very true and I have mentioned that for quite a while with also noting when things started to shift that it was a trap!

Once Amazon decided to tighten the requirements I am convinced that they did NOT change the language about receipts or invoices on purpose.

Once someone sent in their receipts Amazon had hard cold proof that they were NOT sourcing properly and could use all the other ‘vague’ language in their numerous rules and policies to escort those sellers to the exit.

They basically (with some assistance from Amazon) furnished the rope used to hang them and destroy their account. It happened a lot when things changed.

Amazon gives ‘weasel/waffle’ language a bad name…

The way they changed the policy was definitely sneaky. There was never any notice that they had new authenticity requirements, it just started showing up in appeal denial messages. “You must provide a letter of authorization or trademark licensing agreement”

Even now they don’t specify that you need to get a letter of authorization.

Check this blog post from Oct 23 this year on Seller University

They recommend REVIEWING the SUPPLIER’S documentation…

Invoice OR LOA

Nowhere else on the page does it say you need to obtain your own LOA

I don’t blame sellers who get caught thinking that their invoice is all they need, because Amazon themselves imply in many different places that an invoice is fully sufficient for selling on Amazon.