Amazon or eBay Account Suspended? What Online Sellers Can Do Now
A suspension hits online sellers where they are most vulnerable: from one hour to the next, sales grind to a halt while the fixed costs keep running. What is particularly frustrating is that many suspensions are not based on a genuine violation at all, but on a complaint that a competitor has filed with the platform.
Anyone affected should know one thing: there are concrete and fast routes against an unjustified suspension – against the platform as well as against whoever triggered the complaint.
Why Accounts and Listings Are Suspended
Suspensions have different triggers, which have to be treated differently in legal terms. In practice, they can be traced back to a handful of scenarios:
- Complaint by a third party over an alleged infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights: for example because of an infringement of a trade mark, a design or a copyright. The most common trigger and, at the same time, the one with the greatest scope for fighting back.
- Counterfeit or knock-off allegation: the claim that the goods are fake.
- Report via a platform's brand protection programme – on Amazon the Brand Registry, on eBay the Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO) – not uncommonly by a trade mark proprietor who wants to stop the sale of genuine goods.
- Breach of the platform's own policies: for example on product safety, performance metrics or reviews.
What is decisive is a distinction that governs the entire further course of action: if the suspension is based on the platform's own decision, action is directed against the platform. If it was triggered by a competitor's complaint, action against the complainant also comes into consideration – and that is frequently the more effective lever.
Act Immediately: The First Steps
At the outset, speed counts, but not blind haste. This order makes sense: first establish the exact reason for the suspension from the platform's notification and note every deadline the platform sets for a response. Then review your own position before reacting – a hastily submitted, blanket "Plan of Action" containing an admission of guilt can later be used against the seller and make it harder to recover damages.
At the same time, the sources of supply must be secured: supply chains, purchase invoices and supplier records are the basis for later proving that the goods are legitimate (see below on exhaustion). Finally, the loss of sales should be documented on an ongoing basis – it is the basis for calculating any damages.
Have your suspension reviewed now
## Action Against the PlatformSellers have rights against the platform that many do not know about and that apply in particular to opaque suspensions.
Under Art. 4 of the P2B Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, the platform must give the business user reasons for any restriction, suspension or termination of its services. In the case of a suspension or restriction, the reasons must be given before or at the same time as it takes effect; in the case of a complete termination, as a rule 30 days in advance. It must also maintain an internal complaint-handling system (Art. 11 P2B Regulation) through which the measure can be clarified.
In parallel, the Digital Services Act (DSA) obliges the platform: under Art. 17 DSA it must explain every decision to remove content, suspend the service or block the account in a comprehensible statement of reasons. Under Art. 20 DSA it must maintain an internal complaint-handling system and reverse a decision without undue delay if the complaint shows that the information complained of is neither unlawful nor in breach of the terms and conditions.
In the first place, these provisions create procedural obligations. The claim to reinstatement itself follows, as a rule, from the marketplace contract: if the suspension is unjustified, the seller can demand restoration – and, if the platform remains persistently inactive, enforce this by way of a preliminary injunction. Whether this holds up depends on the individual case; the clearer the seller's entitlement and the greater the damage threatened, the more likely it is.
Action Against the Complainant: The Unjustified IP Infringement Warning
If a competitor has triggered the suspension through an unjustified IP complaint, this is where the sharpest lever lies – because the suspended seller becomes the attacker.
In legal terms, the complaint to the platform is nothing other than a warning that is addressed not to the seller itself but to a third party – the platform – and strikes at the seller's business there. Under the landmark decision of the Great Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH, order of 15 July 2005 – GSZ 1/04, BGHZ 164, 1 – Unberechtigte Schutzrechtsverwarnung), such an unjustified warning can constitute an unlawful interference with the right to an established and operating business (§ 823 para. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB)) and – where fault is established – give rise to an obligation to pay damages. The BGH expressly covered precisely the situation in which it is not the seller itself but an intermediary third party that is warned (the so-called customer warning, or Abnehmerverwarnung); the principles also apply to complaints made to online platforms.
Three claims arise from this for the affected seller: withdrawal of the complaint made to the platform, injunctive relief against future unjustified complaints and damages for the loss of sales, including the costs of the seller's own legal enforcement. In addition, competition-law claims under the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG) come into consideration where the complainant is a competitor: deliberate obstruction (§ 4 no. 4 UWG) and – where untrue statements of fact are made about the business – disparagement (§ 4 no. 2 UWG).
A prerequisite is that the complaint constitutes a serious and final demand and turns out to be unjustified. If, on the other hand, it was justified, the unlawfulness is lacking – which is why everything stands or falls with a careful examination of the IP position.
Special Case of Brand Protection Programmes: Exhaustion When Selling Genuine Goods
A particularly common scenario: a trade mark proprietor uses the Amazon Brand Registry or eBay's VeRO programme to block a seller who is selling genuine goods. Here the principle of exhaustion under § 24 of the Trade Mark Act (MarkenG) applies. If the goods were put on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA) with the consent of the trade mark proprietor, their resale is in principle permissible – the proprietor can then no longer rely on its trade mark right, and the complaint is unjustified.
This must be distinguished from two cases: actual counterfeits, where no exhaustion occurs, and the exceptions in § 24 para. 2 MarkenG – for example in the case of altered or repackaged goods, whose distribution the proprietor has legitimate grounds to oppose. What is decisive is the state of the evidence: as a rule, the seller must itself demonstrate exhaustion, that is, prove an unbroken chain of supply from a legitimate source. This brings us full circle to the preservation of evidence – without clean documentation of supply chains and invoices, the strongest objection cannot be raised.
The offensive side – how trade mark proprietors use the Brand Registry and their claims against real infringers – is covered separately in our article Trade Mark Infringement: Which Claims Trade Mark Proprietors Can Enforce.
Enforcement and Speed: Internal Route or Court?
The fastest route is often an internal objection through the platform's complaint-handling system – it costs nothing and, where a suspension is clearly unjustified, often already leads to reinstatement. If, however, the platform stonewalls or the complainant refuses to withdraw the complaint, a preliminary injunction is the sharper sword: against the platform for reinstatement and/or against the complainant for withdrawal and cessation.
What counts here is urgency and a credibly substantiated, quantified loss of sales. Which route is viable in a particular case is a tactical decision – it depends on the reason for the suspension, the state of the evidence and the economic pressure. For more on this, see our article on the preliminary injunction in competition law.
Prevention: Protecting Your Own Business
Anyone who sells regularly via platforms should actively reduce the risk of suspension: through their own trade mark and their own entry in the Brand Registry or VeRO as a shield against third-party complaints, an IP clearance check before listing new products, complete documentation of all sources of supply and a fixed internal procedure for the event that a complaint or suspension is received. In an emergency, this preparation decides how quickly you can react.
FAQ
My Amazon account has been suspended – what should I do?
First establish the exact reason for the suspension and the deadlines from the platform's notification, document sources of supply and loss of sales, and do not make a hasty admission of guilt. Then object through the internal complaint-handling system – and, if the suspension is unjustified, enforce the claim to reinstatement, if necessary by way of a preliminary injunction.
Can I defend myself against an unjustified trade mark complaint?
Yes. An unjustified IP complaint can be an unlawful interference with an established and operating business. The seller can demand withdrawal of the complaint, injunctive relief and – where fault is established – damages for the loss of sales, including its own legal enforcement costs.
May I resell branded goods on Amazon or eBay?
Genuine goods that were put on the market in the EEA with the consent of the trade mark proprietor may in principle be resold because of the principle of exhaustion. A complaint made on that basis – via the Brand Registry or VeRO – is unjustified, provided the goods are not counterfeit and no exceptional case (such as repackaged goods) applies.
Does the platform have to give reasons for the suspension?
Yes. Under the P2B Regulation and the Digital Services Act, the platform must give reasons for the restriction, suspension or blocking and provide an internal complaints procedure.
How quickly do I have to react?
As quickly as possible. Platform deadlines are running, the loss of sales is growing, and an urgency deadline applies to a preliminary injunction. Anyone who acts promptly and in the right order keeps every option open.
Is Your Account or Listing Suspended?
We examine the reason for the suspension and take action against the platform and – where necessary – against the complainant.
