I exclusively sell toys and am not thrilled with the timing, either. But, unlike last time, this is at least on an as-requested basis, whereas the last time there was a hard due-date for basically everything in the catalog. Two weeks in and I don’t have a single request on over 1600 SKUs. I’m in no way defending the absurdity of it all, but I have no reason to believe the sky is falling - yet.
Key word, and I hope your 1600 remain fine!
Or Amazon is throwing out the bathwater because throwing out the baby is their intent, but it would horrify too many people to admit it.
It was stated on NSFE (in response to my comments) that removal orders can be done; but they will be charged, even though Amazon changed the policy after everyone shipped in Q4 inventory. You can keep selling through Oct 30.
Well, it does save time drying each one off if there are thousands of proverbial babies to be chucked.
And you can expect your removed inventory back in which quarter of 2026?
Its probably too late to sell such toys, on any site, in 2025 even if you issued a removal order today.
Yeah, no matter how you slice it, it’s a CF. But at least it’s not being stolen from you and destroyed.
Yes, I assumed they would not be free
Just ran across this interesting assertion by Michelle_Amazon, posted to a similar NSFE discussion 091125 (emphasis mine):
As such ‘blanket’ coverage has not been the norm with previous compliance mandates, I’m not sure I believe this…
That’s… new. I’m with @Dogtamer on not trusting that statement.
And that goes against what I’ve seen posted by sellers on the NSFE, who complain that every seller has to comply.
This actually angers me. SO once seller foots the bill (and does the legwork) for everyone???
Not me … while I do get that. Why should everyone have to keep testing the same product?
The only thing here is not having the brand do it for all.
Think of it this way: what stops me from sending in a lead-painted knockoff under the sucessful safety test results for Barbie’s Dreamhouse?
It would certainly seem to conflict with another assertion made by Michelle 091725 over in the ‘main’ “Toy Sellers Alert” NSFE Discussion (emphasis mine):
As best I can tell, at this early stage in the development, the process seems to be rather inchoate…leaving me quite chary of proving able in formulating a complete understanding of what Amazon’s actual goal is here - much less in formulating a plan to address it profitably.
Well …
-
What’s to stop you from doing that anyway, even if you test?
-
You would risk losing your account
And if you are one of the ‘usual suspects’ offshore, what do you care about one account?
You may have 25 more as backups to take over sales.
Bezos selling out to Xi and the CCP was the tipping point for the company. Then he fled to build rockets and oversized yachts. Amazon will likely outlive me (hopefully NOT) but it has been a total mess and will only accelerate the decline going forward.
Another interesting comment was made earlier today by Michelle_Amazon in the ‘main’ NSFE discussion, which sheds a little insight on how Amazon’s automated mechanisms are attempting to shield it from Legal Liability by setting arbitrary “Play Value” attributes (think “Attractive Nuisance Doctrine”, extrapolated for ASTM F963 & similar regulations):
O, what a slippery slope we slide
Whenever The River’s waters roil
At High Tide.
I got my first hit overnight … 2 ASINs
Michelle_Amazon did post this, as I expected.
My comments just posted, "How do we know who is doing what? What if 5 sellers are all needing TIC and ALL pay for testing?
Amazon needs a way to show that testing is being done by someone so others don’t repeat the process."
NOTE: I’ve deleted the inventory to see if the violation disappear, just like with SIPV’s.