Actually, a bit of the opposite, as the removed posts were made by users up in arms about the third paragraph, in reply to those who saluted it as being the true state of affairs - but the actual underlying theme of the removals would appear to be that there was unneeded venom in the replies.
As per my usual, I have copies of the posts, and I can see why the FMT-CMT acted as it did…
I was out of town for a couple days. When one of the casinos comps us a room (seriously, we don’t go there very much!) we GO!
Many, (most?) of the removed responses were slamming me and telling me that I needed apologize to all the ‘receipts are fine’ crowd. I had a feeling that eating copious amounts of crow would not have helped though.
I rarely tag any responses as inappropriate but a couple did get clicked as such this time.
Here is some added information on this topic since I did have a MOD open a case and she and I went back and forth a bit about this.
Since I don’t think there is anything ‘confidential’ included, here is the last bit of communication I had with @michelle_amazon on the removed topic. At the bottom I am posting what I had sent her with this response received.
**"I have been able to confirm that that Amazon will accept receipts, just not for all items, so the information provided was incorrect that was posted and why it was removed. This is why we are still seeing this verbiage in the help pages and the links that you had previously provided. **
If I am able to gather any further information, I will be sure to let you know.
Thank you for selling with Amazon,
Michelle
I keep trying to shame them into doing something. NOTE that I am not an attorney but spent 35 years in the investment business and about 15 of that in the Compliance Departments of two pretty big firms dealing with all the vagaries of regulatory wording such as is found in the INFORM Act, thus my comments there about what is buried and never referred to that I have seen –
After saying the post by @glenn_amazon was GREAT I tried the “shame on you” route!
…is there any chance that Amazon will actually grow a spine on the receipt issue?
"“3. Nothing you buy from online or physical (brick-and-mortar) retailers can be resold. That would be considered a “counterfeit” product under the new rules and you may risk having your account permanently deactivated.”
I quoted it and then APPARENTLY Amazon manglement forced the removal of the most direct statement on receipts that I have ever seen on the site.
I have been getting slammed (as has @tvoi50) by the trolls such as @flyavifly_boutique who has been stalking me and slamming everything I and others have said about RA, OA, receipts versus invoices, etc.. They have been putting out information about me and others that they have dug up because AMAZON decided to ‘out’ all of the sellers posting on the site.
Flyavi stated this – “In the last 24 hours there have already been statements from law firms that have consulted with Amazon legal to verify that the moderator that posted this made claims that aren’t backed anywhere in Amazon Seller TOS.” and suddenly the #3 clause magically disappeared. So, Amazon folded their tent under legal pressue and is not willing to put the invoice requiremtn in writing because it will cost them money.
The answer is simple (but it WILL cost Amazon money so I suppose it will never happen) –
PUT IT IN WRITING that INVOICES from authorized distributors are required.
Frankly (and I’m not an attorney but my daughter is) a close reading of the INFORM Act REQUIRES that Amazon have proof of authenticity for the products sold here – for Amazon, here is an additional risk that no one seems to pay much attention to.
Amazon has hundreds of thousands of dropshippers and RA sellers (some that are dumb enough to have Walmart or eBay send items directly to Amazon buyers). For Amazon that can cause severe problems –
Directly from the law – (emphasis added in my Forum posts where I referred to this)
“(ii) Whether the high-volume third party seller used a different seller to supply the consumer product to the consumer upon purchase, and, upon the request of an authenticated purchaser, the information described in clause (i) relating to any such seller that supplied the consumer product to the purchaser, if such seller is different than the high-volume third party seller listed on the product listing prior to purchase.”
In other words, if the AMAZON seller used a different seller to supply the consumer product to the consumer (COMMENT–dropshipped or RA direct from someone else) that seller MUST provide the information for the source of the items and the authenticity of such.
As to proving authenticity, again from the law –
Although the law doesn’t list specific verification steps, the methods the online marketplace chooses must enable it “to reliably determine that any information and documents provided are valid, corresponding to the seller or an individual acting on the seller’s behalf, not misappropriated, and not falsified.”
Perhaps your attorneys would like to revisit the removal of that clause saying ‘receipts don’t count’."
End of rant for the moment!
GAHHHHH
How is this useful? Why not just say “Amazon reserves the right to be capricious, erratic, inconsistent, and arbitrary, and y’all can suck it!”
It is the typical Amazon ‘flexibility’ verbiage. They make everything as imprecise and open to THEIR interpretation as possible.
It makes everything they decide to do a valid (according to Amazon) determination.
If you have a decade or two of ‘good will’ and few issues with them I suspect (because I have not had any serious problems) that you can/will be treated quite differently than some poor rookie that listened to and watched all the crap on YouTube, TikTok, and, read all the supporters of OA and RA that post on the NSFE.
AND, it lets them collect $40/month from all those folks right up until they get suspended and all their FBA items and cash is seized.
I know why it’s in Amazon’s favor to do this, but it makes dealing with them radically more difficult when the rules are ill defined, sporadically enforced, and designed to obfuscate the exact nature of infractions that can result in the permanent loss of an account and all it’s inventory.
Stuff like this really ticks me off.
I want to obey your rules but you won’t tell me what they are!
Thank you and @Tvoi for fighting for legitimate, rule-following Sellers against the onslaught of “as long as I alone can get away with it” Sellers
Thank you! some of these other sellers are brutal-they have to be right about everything. I know I am not, and will say so if I am proven wrong, but man, these people do not let it go.
So, I apparently struck a (sore) nerve AGAIN with Amazon and specifically @indy_amazon about the receipts topic when I responded to @Tvoi in this post — Why some of our products decline for sell
Since Indy says they are going to edit out “some of the spicier phrasing here” I have preserved it.
I’m not sure if it’s the ‘grow a spine…’ or the " no shame, no conscience" that bothers them the most…
Indy & Xander have both been making posts along these lines over the last few days - including @ least one in reply to one of our fellow SAS members.
My suspicion is that Katie’s performance may be beginning to wear a bit thin with the folks even higher up the food chain who bought her bologna…
Hmmm-didn’t see that. If they weren’t so vague and actually said what they want up front, then all of us wouldn’t have to keep telling them over and over and over again!
And people said I was terse. 
There is THIS page on invoices for policy violations…
I have a feeling that they are VERY GRADUALLY working their way toward not allowing any receipts and likely not allowing any USED items (including books) but it is being met with resistance by the bean counters looking at all the fees they get from all of the OA and RA sellers.
They make millions/billions from the offshore knockoffs, you would think they could grow a spine and just say it is no longer permitted as of xxxx date.
Preach it brother Dwat… Preach it… RA/OA is the grey market trash that ruins supply chains and good honest business.
Not sure how this is still being argued about today when its been pretty clearly spelled out in the Seller University for years now, and hasn’t changed.
Guidelines to source products to sell on Amazon on SellerCentral
The core reason this is still being discussed is that Amazon has different information in different places. In some places Amazon is clear that only invoices are accepted. In others, Amazon says receipts are also accepted.
Even there it is NOT as ‘clear’ as the huge majority of us would like.
Look at what they have on screen –
It does NOT say “Authorized WHOLESALE Distributor” it says “Authorized Reseller”.
If I were to even try to list all of the authorized resellers for any major brand it would take me weeks to post them here.
Take your pick (which MANY rookies do) of Sam’s Club, Costco, BJ’s Wholesale, Walmart, Menards, Office Depot, Walgreens, and so on.
Amazon is purposefully NOT clear because it increases their revenue by $40/month until the incompetents are suspended.
Amazon banks on the unconscious incompetents.
As long as the NSFE is under the marketing department and not “selling partners”, Amazon will continue to censor criticism towards itself.
And as long as “receipt” v “invoice” translations continues to problematic for anyone other than English speakers, Amazon will not be able to escape its (willful, conscious) incompetence in policing product sourcing.
