New wording from Amazon? Has anyone else seen this?

So prowling through the NSFE and the Rookie Seller side I pounced on some poor newbie that was ‘confused’ about everything.

They had received this response to an item they were being declined for ungating (emphasis added):

“”-- You have provided a unacceptable document. We are unable to accept retail receipts, online order confirmations, packing slips, sales orders, pro-forma invoices, or sales quotes for approval. Provide an invoice from a manufacturer, distributor, or your supplier reflecting the itemized list of goods purchased."

This is the first time I have seen them FINALLY say that receipts are not accepted (but I haven’t been rejected in years).


It’s been a while, but I do recall seeing that same verbiage posted more than once in the OSFE days - possibly even as far back as the Age of Jive (I’d have to root around in the archives to know for sure exactly when I first saw it).


I would say that should clear up the question of why isn’t my costco receipt accepted, but it won’t


Like others, I’ve seen that wording for quite some time.

But I’ve also seen mods post fairly recently a different place that mentions receipts as acceptable, although that may be for different reasons (ungating vs. proving FBA inventory, or something like that).

Amazon is tops when it comes to providing multiple instructions that don’t agree.


I think that many or most of them have cut and paste templates just like I do for response on the NSFE.

The last time I checked with the ‘agreement’ it still said that receipts are OK.

Amazon almost never changes the wording on their Seller U stuff and I have believed for well over a year (maybe 2) that they have left the ‘receipt’ word there so rookies send in their receipts and are handing Amazon absolute proof they are NOT sourcing properly.

At that point they get suspended and Amazon keeps the $40/month collecting tens of thousands of dollars a year from lazy people that were looking for the “softer, easier way” that doesn’t exist.


On a similar note, I’ve long figured that not fully closing off Nike and Adidas is a similar test; “We’ll let you list, then you’ll get suspended”; although apparently, that door has now been closed.

Maybe. I don’t trust Amazon to fully stop anything. Too many silos to be policed properly.


adidas is locked down pretty tight, Nike ended their partnership with Amazon a couple years ago, so they should’ve loosened the restrictions on them. If Nike’s not going to sell to Amazon then it’s not Amazon’s job to police their IP for them. This does seem to be the case as I see numerous 3P sellers on nike listings.

For months, people have been listing Nike, then losing their accounts a week or two later. There’s been at least one or two posts per week on the NSFE. It’s only been the last week or so that people have started reporting not being able to list Nike (ditto for Adidas).

1 Like

I would disagree since the powers that be in DC passed legislation stripping all the sites from any shelter or protection from being fined for allowing knockoffs, counterfeits, stolen goods on the previously protected platforms.

Now it is absolutely in the best interests financially of Amazon to demand proof of authenticity – meaning INVOICES from authorized distributors.

I think that most sellers have no clue about the long term ramifications of what got passed.

I doubt that you will find very many ‘used’ items on Amazon within the next couple years and almost every category will be gated with LOA and invoice requirements.


If it’s counterfeits, sure, if it’s just grey market goods that’s the brand owner’s problem to sue the individual sellers (or fix their supply chain).

Seeing how Nike does not authorize anyone to sell on Amazon, Amazon HAS to allow grey market goods otherwise they’ll lose all product listings for that brand. This is a nike created problem.

No, because it is Amazon that allows non dealers to sell new products as if they were actual dealers in the eyes of the consumer.
Amazon is the problem.


It’s Amazon’s store, just like how they have the right to prohibit people from reselling items for any reason, they also have the right to choose to allow people to list items as new. Clothing typically doesn’t come with warranties, so listing the items as new is probably correct and Nike wouldn’t have a case. Given that Nike’s a big brand with a lot of resources, the fact they haven’t taken Amazon to court over this issue leads me to believe that their attorneys don’t think they can win and that Amazon’s in the right here.

I know a consultant who worked with a brand who had the attitude that they don’t want their products being sold on Amazon, and they also took issue with the fact that the detail pages for their products were poorly made and made the brand look bad. But they didn’t want to appoint an authorized reseller and use brand registry to clean things up. They never resolved the problem.

Amazon’s a big, powerful company that plays by their own rules. If you want to resolve an issue on the platform it’s best to follow their rules and procedures and to work amicably with them, unless you think you have a very solid case and want to spend 2 years and 8 figures+ on a lawsuit.

Yes, but that allowance is what makes your leaky supply chain assertion garbage.

We have had over 40 listings removed in the last decade using the available tools. All of them are dog paged now. It’s not hard to enforce keeping stuff off Amazon. It is however very hard keeping dumpster divers from selling used things as new, and that is 100% Amazon’s fault.

1 Like

You played by Amazon’s rules and followed their protocols and procedures.

This brand wanted Amazon to stop people from selling their brand on Amazon and they were more or less ignored. They didn’t want to do the work involved to monitor and enforce. IMO this brand actually had a basis for not allowing the products to be listed as new, but they don’t have the resources to take on Amazon in court.

Hanlon’s Razor has to be applied, when no details are provided.

Like chasing old lovers, some things are not worth the pursuit.

You do not have to sue Amazon to make this happen. Details matter so making assertions without the specifics is kind of useless in this point.

1 Like

That’s just it. They HAVE been allowing them; then after a week or so, Nike files “counterfeit” claims, Amazon asks for verification, and the seller can’t.
Once that happens, while selling real items is still legal, Amazon loses ANY “plausible deniability” protecting them from any claims if it is truly fake. So Amazon kills the account.

It doesn’t matter what method is used, the end result is that sellers who list Nike (and Adidas, and UnderArmour, and likely many other unauthorized brands) end up getting their account suspended.

You can argue about the legality of it, but bottom line is, sellers listing Nike lose.

I wouldn’t list Nike products for that reason.

Amazon’s winning big time on this though. They’re getting their 15% commission on all sales, and they’re seizing the funds of the sellers who can’t provide nonexistent documentation, and all the while keeping their store selection high by providing listings for nike products.

And of course, it’s nike’s responsibility to monitor/test buy/file claims, so they’re doing most of the work related to the issue.

1 Like

Of course you wouldn’t. Anyone with an ounce of sense and enough left over to browse the NSFE for at least an hour wouldn’t.

But many new sellers see the same as you stated, that there are sellers listing Nike, so therefore it MUST be allowed. And they get their account closed before they get even their first payout.

Thankfully, at least according to reports on the NSFE, it appears that Amazon has finally stopped allowing people to even list Nike in the first place