Amazon Escalations (Pre-Arbitration)

📨 Round 1 – Initial Escalation Results

On June 16–17, 2025, I submitted four initial escalation emails regarding residual trust suppression on my U.S. Amazon seller account (A1LTMDBMBP1XZ0). These were directed to the Executive Team, Brand Registry, Seller Performance, and Amazon Legal.

The responses received were inconsistent, contradictory, and evasive:

• Case ID 17925325101 (June 16): Amazon claimed my account had “policy violations” requiring appeal — despite no violations being visible in my Account Health dashboard.
  
  🔗 View PDF Response
• Case ID 17934860391 (June 17): Amazon issued a boilerplate message promising review “within 24 hours,” but no case was ever opened. Attempting to view the case produced a dashboard error.
  
  🖼️ Screenshot of Invalid Case Link
  
  🔗 View PDF Response

➡️ Key Contradiction: In Round 1, Amazon alleged unresolved violations. But in Round 2, Amazon claimed my account was “in good standing.” These contradictory positions expose Amazon’s failure to investigate or escalate the underlying issue — and confirm the presence of undisclosed backend enforcement logic.

📌 All Round 1 messages are archived and will be submitted as evidence in formal arbitration filings.

🧱 Round 2 – Systemic Deflection: Auto-Created Cases & Misdirection

Date: June 23–24, 2025

Summary: After Round 2 legal escalations were sent to Executive Relations, Brand Registry, Seller Performance, and Amazon Legal, Amazon created three unrelated support cases — all of which ignored the trust flag issue entirely. These responses exemplify a pattern of deflection: auto-closing cases, misclassifying the problem as a catalog error, or falsely marking it “answered.”

Escalation Recipients: These cases followed formal legal escalations sent to:

• Amazon Executive Relations
• Amazon Legal
• Brand Registry & Policy Teams
• Seller Performance

📎 Evidence Documents

• 📄 Auto-Created Case Survey – 17971620891
• 🖼️ Seller Central Screenshot – No Record for 17971620891
• 📄 ASIN Request for Trust Escalation – 17971751571
• 📄 Case 17971782921 – False “Answered” Executive Reply
• 📄 Case 17971751571 – Misrouting regional support, Answered in different language
• 📄 Case 17971751571 – Did not investigate – generic reply

Conclusion: These three deflections confirm a systemic failure of accountability. Amazon’s enforcement teams have refused to acknowledge or investigate a suppression issue tied to a reversed enforcement action. All records are timestamped and preserved for arbitration, regulatory inquiry, and public reporting.

🚨 Round 3 – Executive Mailbox Full, Internal Escalations Misrouted

Date: June 26, 2025

Summary: Round 3 escalation emails were sent directly to Amazon’s CEO, Legal, Executive Relations, Public Policy, Brand Registry, and Policy teams — referencing systemic post-reinstatement suppression caused by an unremoved Section 3 trust flag. Despite clearly outlining time-decay enforcement behavior and submitting exhaustive documentation, Amazon again failed to meaningfully respond.

📎 Evidence Documents

• 📄 Executive Email Bounce Notice (Mailbox Full) – For the SECOND Time in a row
• 📄 Case 17991408071 – Phantom Placeholder Case
• 📄 Case 17991408071 – Phantom Placeholder Case… Asking for a review of their “resolution” (the case doesn’t exist)
• 📄 Case 17992512051 – Brand Registry Misclassification – Repetitive ASIN Request, No Acknowledgment

This email shows Seller Support acknowledging that my account is not functioning properly (“limited access”) while simultaneously claiming it’s “normal.” They falsely blamed the issue on payment methods — which were never an issue — further confirming that Amazon staff cannot see or understand the SIP/TRMS enforcement layer responsible for systemic suppression.

Conclusion: Round 3 confirmed what prior rounds already indicated: Amazon is deliberately ignoring systemic enforcement artifacts — rerouting valid escalations into dead-end queues, suppressing policy-level review, and failing to maintain basic email infrastructure. The escalation thread was not acknowledged by a single executive recipient.

Next Steps: A public LinkedIn post and final Round 4 escalation will follow on Monday, July 1. If Amazon continues to stonewall, a final Round 5 escalation will be sent — followed by certified legal notice and arbitration filing.

Final Outcome of Round 3 – Official Denial, Brand Contradictions

Date: July 6, 2025

Summary: After weeks of correspondence, Amazon closed Round 3 by falsely stating that the only way to list most brands — including Dove, 3M, Tide, Energizer, Dungeons & Dragons, and dozens more — was by being added by the brand owner. This is demonstrably false: these brands are available to other sellers through Seller Central approval pathways, and I have previously been approved to sell most of them. The claim that I must now be “added by the brand owner” is an invented restriction and a clear refusal to acknowledge the trust flag suppression that began after my related Section 3 enforcement was reversed.

“If you want to be part of the Brands […] you have to get in contact with the Brand Owner and that person has to add you.”

— Eduardo R., Amazon Escalation Department


📄 Full Email: Case ID 17993200421

This fabricated justification is directly contradicted by Amazon’s own internal approvals system, brand onboarding logic, and my account’s history of valid documentation. It confirms that frontline support and leadership teams:

• Have no visibility into SIP/TRMS/ASR enforcement systems
• Are unaware of (or unwilling to admit) the time-decay brand suppression logic
• Default to misinformation to prematurely close complex support cases

Conclusion: Round 3 is now closed. Amazon has officially denied wrongdoing, refused to remove residual trust flags, and misrepresented brand policies to justify systemic enforcement errors.

Next Steps: Round 4 will be launched Monday, July 7, 2025 and will include:

• 📬 Final escalation email to CEO, Legal, SIP, and Executive Relations
• 📢 Public LinkedIn post with supporting screenshots, brands, and suppression timeline
• 🧾 Formal warning of arbitration proceedings

All further suppression, delays, or fabrications will be added to arbitration claims and submitted to regulatory bodies including the FTC, DOJ, and state consumer protection offices.

🚨 July 7, 2025 – False Policy Response from Amazon Escalation Department

Agent: Paula R.
Department: Selling Partner Support Escalation Department
Case ID: 17993200421

🧾 Summary:

Amazon representative Paula R. falsely claimed that the only path to regaining access to previously approved brands is through private brand owner invitation. This directly contradicts:

• My prior approved status for dozens of major brands (through Amazon’s own approval workflows)
• The continued availability of “Apply to Sell” workflows for certain ASINs
• The fact that many of my listings are now gated with no option to apply, which blocks even brand-owner intervention

This reply demonstrates a clear policy misstatement by Amazon’s Escalation Department. It further confirms Amazon’s refusal to address the true cause: a residual SIP/TRMS trust flag never removed after the reversed Section 3 enforcement.

📄
View the full email response from Amazon (PDF)

🔒 Arbitration Evidence Use:

This message will be cited under the category “Willful Obstruction / False Guidance” as part of my arbitration filings. It shows that Amazon is offering false policy narratives rather than engaging with enforcement-level defects.

🧨 Round 4 – Deflection, Fabrication, and Proof of Systemic Failure

Date: July 7, 2025

Summary: After direct escalations were sent to Amazon’s executive leadership, legal team, and policy divisions, Amazon again refused to acknowledge the existence of a backend enforcement flag. Instead, Seller Support issued fabricated claims, misrepresented my brand access history, and instructed me to “get added by the brand owner” for products I was previously auto-approved to sell — including Dove, Herbal Essences, Energizer, and Dungeons & Dragons.

Amazon further claimed that I had reapplied and been rejected for those brands. That is categorically false. I was already approved. I never reapplied — I was silently revoked without cause, notice, or appeal path.

📌 The following email responses are included as evidence of deflection, fabrication, and systemic platform interference:

• 📄
  Brand Membership Gating – Instructed to “contact brand owners” for legacy approvals
• 📄
  Dove, Aussie, Herbal Essences, Fixodent, 3M – False denial, misrepresented invoice policy
• 📄
  Energizer, Dungeons & Dragons, Fisher-Price – Falsely claimed application rejection I never submitted

💥 Central Fact:

This is not a brand approval issue. It is an account suppression issue — the result of a backend trust flag (likely SIP/TRMS/ASR-based) that Amazon failed to remove after reversing a Section 3 enforcement in January 2025. The system continues to silently re-gate brands I was previously authorized to sell, using a “time-decay” logic model that penalizes inactive ASINs.

📉 Most egregiously, I am now being asked to submit invoices for 400+ units to “reapply” for categories I’ve sold in for years — including pet food, grocery, and household. I’m being treated like a brand-new, unvetted seller despite fulfilling over 125,000 orders with a 99% feedback rating and $1.5M in revenue (Jan 2022 – Dec 2024).

📌 Conclusion:

Amazon has now confirmed it will not investigate or escalate this issue. The matter will proceed to formal arbitration — with every brand treated as a separate legal filing, and every inconsistency archived for regulatory exposure.

Next Step: Final Round 5 escalation + certified legal notice upon their likely continued deflections begins Friday, July 11, 2025.