Amazon Letter of Authorization (LOA): Requirements, Template & Rejections
For sellers facing IP complaints, Brand Registry authorization questions, detail page suppressions, or Account Health requests to prove brand permission.
Amazon uses a Letter of Authorization to confirm that a rights owner granted your business permission to use protected IP (brand, logo, packaging, images, related claims) the way you sell. Amazon does not reject only fabricated letters. It often rejects real relationships when the document cannot be verified or mapped to your Seller Central legal entity, the ASIN, the marketplace, or the exact assets on the detail page. If the letter is vague, unsigned, or silent on scope and territory, reviewers treat it as non-verifiable. Defensible letters name parties, marks, channels, and dates, with a signer Amazon can plausibly validate.
When Amazon flags listing or account issues tied to trademarks or brand-controlled assets, it often asks for an Amazon letter of authorization (same as an Amazon LOA or brand authorization letter for Amazon sellers) from the IP owner. This guide explains what must be in the letter so it can pass document checks, not how to invent authority. Fabricating or backdating violates policy and can escalate enforcement.
LOA template and sample (illustration only)
The bracketed text below is an Amazon letter of authorization template you can hand to the brand’s counsel: it mirrors Seller Central’s five key terms, optional improvements language, and signatory block. Treat it as an Amazon LOA example only (fictional placeholders). It is not legal advice and not for use as-is.
An Amazon LOA is the same underlying document whether you arrived from a letter-of-authorization-for-seller-account notice, a Seller Central path, or a search for a template, sample, or example. UK English often uses letter of authorisation. Drafting belongs to the brand’s counsel; your side supplies accurate facts (legal entity string, ASINs, marketplaces, assets on the live detail page).
Do not copy-paste this sample as your real LOA. Bracketed text is fictional. Submitting language you cannot truthfully support can worsen enforcement. Have counsel review anything you rely on.
Show structured sample LOA (education only)
Replace every bracketed placeholder; do not treat as a completed legal document.
[REPLACE - LETTERHEAD: legal entity that holds the IP, full address, domain you control] Date: [ISSUE DATE] To whom it may concern (including Amazon verification teams), Re: Letter of Authorization (License Agreement): Intellectual Property --- 1) LICENSOR (Amazon “Licensor” key term) --- [LICENSOR LEGAL ENTITY] (“Licensor”), with its principal office at [ADDRESS], is the owner / authorized licensor of the intellectual property described in Section 3 (Grant) below. --- 2) LICENSEE (Amazon “Licensee” key term) --- [LICENSEE LEGAL ENTITY: EXACT MATCH TO SELLER CENTRAL ACCOUNT INFO] (“Licensee”) is authorized to use the IP solely as set out in this letter. --- 3) GRANT (Amazon “Grant” key term: IP licensed + scope of rights) --- Licensor grants Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the following IP for genuine Licensor products in connection with the Amazon marketplaces listed in Section 4: • Word marks: EXAMPLEMARK [and other marks, with registration numbers if applicable] • Logos / stylized marks: [describe files or style guide reference] • Copyrighted assets: [e.g., standard pack photography, lifestyle asset IDs from Licensor DAM as of DATE] • Design rights (if applicable): [registration or product line reference] Scope of use on Amazon: product titles, bullet points, description, images, A+ content where applicable, Brand Store pages operated by Licensee for covered ASINs [LIST OR PARENT ASIN / PRODUCT LINE], and customer service templates Licensor provides for those products. Sublicensing: [State “not permitted” OR describe permitted sublicense chain, e.g., master distributor → Licensee, only if true and authorized in writing.] Consideration: [e.g., license fee, distribution margin, or “good and valuable consideration acknowledged,” as counsel directs.] --- 4) GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE (Amazon “Geographic Scope” key term: may be worldwide per Seller Central) --- Authorized Amazon marketplaces: [e.g., Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, or “worldwide Amazon marketplaces where Licensee lists covered ASINs,” only if true]. Offline / other channels: [Explicitly excluded OR listed if included.] --- 5) TERM (Amazon “Term” key term: may be perpetual per Seller Central) --- Effective [START DATE] and [choose one: (a) continuing until terminated on thirty (30) days’ written notice; (b) ending on [END DATE]; (c) perpetual unless revoked in writing. Use (c) only if true]. --- OPTIONAL: Improvements, enhancements, modifications (per Amazon Seller Central optional clause topic) --- [If needed:] “Improvement,” “enhancement,” and “modification” mean [short definitions]. Improvements to the licensed IP [state treatment: e.g. auto-included in licensed IP, fee-based, disclosure to licensor, per counsel]. Ownership of improvements: [as negotiated]. --- Amazon verification / contact --- Licensor will respond to reasonable verification inquiries from Amazon regarding this authorization. Contact: [NAME], [TITLE], [phone], [name@protectedbranddomain.com] --- SIGNATORY (Amazon component check: authorized signatory; signature / digital signature / stamp or seal) --- Executed at [CITY], on [SIGNATURE DATE]. _________________________________ Signature / Digital Signature / Company seal (as applicable) [SIGNATORY PRINTED NAME] [TITLE: authorized signatory, Licensor] [LICENSOR LEGAL ENTITY]
Seller Central LOA rules
Amazon publishes Letter of Authorization in Seller Central (Policies → Program Policies → Account Health Rating program policy → Intellectual Property Policy). Treat the live page as the checklist; UI and Help text change.
Official reference: Official Seller Central Letter of Authorization Help article
Amazon’s guidance is that it may ask for trademark ownership proof or an LOA when it believes a listing uses a mark without the rights owner’s approval, on the product, packaging, images, or detail page.
It describes a valid license as a written agreement between the IP owner (or licensor) and your business (licensee) that authorizes use of the IP, usually with consideration, and spells out how you may use it. Amazon also states it may try to validate your LOA by contacting the rights owner you name.
Seller Central’s five key terms
Amazon lists the following as the five key terms that must appear in every IP licensing agreement submitted to Amazon (wording from Seller Central Help):
- ‘Licensor’: The company/brand providing the rights to intellectual property.
- ‘Licensee’: The company/brand receiving the rights to use the intellectual property.
- ‘Grant’: The intellectual property being licensed and the scope of rights granted.
- ‘Geographic Scope’: The specific territory or territories where use is authorized (Amazon notes this may be worldwide).
- ‘Term’: The duration of the authorization (Amazon notes this may be perpetual).
Amazon also discusses sublicensing: if sublicensing is included, it must be specified in the agreement, and may cover all or only some of the rights being licensed.
Optional clause: improvements and modifications
Amazon’s Help page flags an optional area: treatment of improvements, enhancements, and modifications, including who owns follow-on IP, so parties avoid ambiguity. That is a drafting topic for the brand’s counsel when product or creative work evolves under the license.
Acceptable format and components
The Help article splits “important checks” into format and component categories. The table below condenses what Seller Central lists as acceptable; always verify against the live page.
| Check type | What Seller Central describes as acceptable |
|---|---|
| A. Format | PDF documents; scanned images of PDF; Word (with the note that self-declarations are only acceptable if you are the IP owner); screenshots of email from the domain of the company holding rights to the protected brand. |
| B. Components (physical or digital letter) | Letterhead from the company holding rights to the protected brand; body of the LOA containing all essential terms above; authorized signatory from the licensor company; signature, digital signature, stamping, or seal for franking of the document. |
| B. Components (acceptable email) | Sender’s email on a valid domain of the company holding rights to the protected brand; body of the LOA containing the same essential terms. |
Amazon’s Help page adds a conditional note: if you do not have a trademark registration for your own brand in the region where products are sold, you may need to provide a declaration of IP ownership for the brand, with company stamp or signature from authorized personnel. Verify whether that branch applies to your case on the live Help page.
Documents Amazon lists as not acceptable as an LOA
Seller Central explicitly calls out common examples that do not count as a Letter of Authorization, including: invoices; inventory documents; distribution rights / reseller agreements; retailer receipts; order confirmations and packing slips; commercial or customs invoices; bills of lading; sales orders, purchase orders, quotes, or pro-forma invoices. Use the official list when you self-audit attachments.
What an LOA is (and what it is not)
If you are trying to answer what a letter of authorization for Amazon is in one sentence: it is a written license-style grant from the IP owner (or their authorized licensor) to your selling entity, naming the marks and assets you may use and where, so Amazon can verify permission. That is the same document whether you search “letter of authorization Amazon” or for a sample online; only counsel should draft the enforceable letter.
An LOA is a written grant from the licensor (the party that controls the IP) to the licensee (your selling entity) describing which rights are granted, where, for how long, and often on which channels (for example, Amazon marketplaces you actually sell on).
It is not a substitute for invoices, purchase orders, or a distributor agreement, unless that agreement contains an explicit, identifiable IP license that meets the same tests below. Amazon frequently rejects “relationship proof” that never mentions the trademark, logo, or copyrighted assets in dispute.
Which IP to cover
Amazon’s question is rarely “is this invoice real?” alone. It is “was this seller authorized to display these controlled representations?” Work backward from every visible brand touchpoint, not only the title: word marks in titles and bullets; logos and stylized marks on the main image, A+, and Sponsored Brands; packaging and trade dress in pack shots; copyrighted lifestyle or cutaway images; and design rights if the notice references shape or ornamentation. Weak LOAs often authorize “the brand” but not the logo file, A+ module, or ad creative actually in use, or they are trademark-only when the complaint cites design rights.
Entity mismatch in one line: the LOA names the storefront (“Blue Ridge Outdoors LLC” on the letter) while Seller Central’s legal entity is a different LLC on the account. Amazon maps documents to the account record, not to what customers see on the storefront.
Scope mismatch in one line: the LOA authorizes resale of genuine units but is silent on use of the logo, standard pack photography, A+ content, or Sponsored Brands creative; then Amazon flags “unauthorized use” on assets the letter never granted.
Territory mismatch in one line: the LOA lists Amazon.com only, but the performance notice or suppressed offers sit on Amazon.co.uk or EU domains; same SKU family, wrong marketplace list on paper.
If the Performance Notification cites a registration number, complaint reference, or rights-owner reference, align truthful LOA language with that anchor so reviewers are not left to guess which mark or asset the brand released for your use.
LOA vs Brand Registry
Brand Registry and related tools help rights owners manage their brand on Amazon. Your enrollment or absence of enrollment does not automatically replace a letter that grants your entity permission to use someone else’s marks on specific ASINs.
Practical split: Brand Registry answers “who controls the brand on Amazon.” An LOA answers “this seller is allowed to use these marks and assets in these ways.” If you are an authorized distributor but not the brand owner, you still need a grant that ties the licensor’s IP to your listings, not only proof that you bought inventory.
When Amazon typically asks for an LOA
You are most likely to see an LOA request when Amazon needs to reconcile who owns the IP with who is using it on the detail page. Common triggers include:
- You sell under a brand name you do not own, or you are not the rights owner in Brand Registry for that brand.
- The listing uses the brand’s logo, lifestyle photography, packaging shots, or other assets controlled by the brand.
- An IP complaint, rights-owner report, or policy notice cites unauthorized trademark, design, or brand use.
- Amazon asks you to demonstrate authorization after a counter-notice thread, listing suppression, or related account health event.
- A performance notification asks for “authorization from the brand” while your invoices alone do not mention IP.
Depending on the case, an LOA may sit alongside invoices, supply-chain proof, and a Plan of Action. The LOA answers the authorization question; the POA answers the conduct-and-controls question. Neither replaces the other.
How Amazon reads the labels
Licensor is the party granting rights; Licensee should match the seller of record Amazon is evaluating; Grant is which marks and assets you may use and how; Geographic scope is which marketplaces or countries; Term is duration and how the grant ends. Those are the same five pillars Seller Central lists (see Amazon’s five key terms and the practice table below). Most weak drafts fail on vague Grant or a Licensee string that does not match Account Info.
Where the LOA matters in enforcement
The same PDF can pass one path and fail another because the question set shifts: ASIN-level suppression asks whether you had rights to these marks on these offers (failure: right brand, wrong marketplace list or stale packaging grant). Account-health patterns need one coherent authorization across suppressed ASINs (failure: letter covers one line, notices cite another). Complaint threads need the brand’s artifact to match what you told Amazon (failure: “you’re fine” email with no term, territory, or licensee legal name). Reinstatement after a retraction may need a refreshed term if listings changed. If verification is in play, keep LOA, invoices, and account identity spelling consistent.
Five key terms in practice
The table mirrors Seller Central’s Licensor / Licensee / Grant / Geographic Scope / Term framework from the official LOA Help article, with practical flags from enforcement work. If any pillar is missing or fuzzy, rejection risk rises sharply.
Licensee pitfalls: LOA to a personal name while the account is a different legal seller; LOA to a non-selling sister company; legal name change without a bridge exhibit; two storefronts under one identity but the letter only names one. Fix by naming the seller of record on the notice and, if trade names differ, one short mapping the brand will confirm.
| Key term | What it must show | What reviewers flag |
|---|---|---|
| Licensor | The legal entity or person that holds or controls the IP (often matching registry records, Brand Registry enrollment, or the complaining party’s corporate name). | Generic letterhead, “brand team” with no legal name, mismatch vs trademark owner of record. |
| Licensee | Your business exactly as it should appear to Amazon, usually the legal entity on the account or the selling identity tied to the impacted ASINs. | LOA issued to a personal name, different LLC, or a distributor that is not the seller of record on the notice. |
| Grant of rights | Explicit permission to use named IP (word marks, logos, images, packaging) for described commercial activity. | “Authorized reseller” only, with no mention of trademarks, designs, or listing content. |
| Geographic scope | Where the license applies: country, region, “Amazon.com only,” EU marketplaces, etc. | “Worldwide” without clarity, or scope that contradicts where you actually list. |
| Term | Start date, fixed period, renewal language, or “until revoked in writing.” | No dates, or a term that already expired before the suspension event. |
Amazon may also attempt independent confirmation, for example by validating that the signatory is reachable on a domain tied to the brand. If the company on the letter disavows the authorization, the case can fail or worsen.
Grant language and SKU changes
Brands resist rewriting letters every quarter. Reviewers still need enough precision that a new child ASIN or pack-size variation does not fall outside the grant. Common drafting patterns:
- Product-line anchor: define by family name, parent ASIN, or official catalog series the brand uses internally, plus explicit inclusion of “future sizes, flavors, or pack counts within the same line unless discontinued in writing.”
- Creative systems: if you syndicate brand-managed digital assets, name the repository or style guide version (“assets as published in Licensor’s DAM as of [date]”) so updates do not silently void permission.
- Controlled vocabulary: if Amazon flags “medical” or “award” claims tied to brand copy, the LOA is not the place to cure advertising-law issues, but it should not contradict claims the brand allows you to repeat verbatim.
- Bundles and multi-packs: state whether authorization covers virtual bundles, variety packs, and “frustration-free packaging” graphics if those appear on your offers.
- Amazon-only vs omnichannel: if counsel narrows the grant to Amazon, ensure your DTC site, wholesale sheets, and retail arbitrage workflows do not reuse assets outside the letter without a separate channel addendum.
Who signs the LOA
Amazon cares whether the signer plausibly speaks for the IP owner. Long supply chains create weak letters when a middle party signs without showing they may sublicense or bind the brand.
| Signer | When it can work | Typical gap |
|---|---|---|
| Rights owner (brand legal entity) | Strongest path for trademark and packaging-image grants. | Wrong entity on letterhead vs registry; personal email only. |
| Authorized regional affiliate of the brand | Acceptable if the affiliate is documented as managing IP for the region in dispute. | No explanation of relationship to parent brand or registry owner. |
| Master distributor with explicit sublicense right | Works when the distributor’s agreement clearly allows them to authorize Amazon listing use of named marks. | Agreement only covers “purchase and resale,” not logos or detail-page content. |
| Factory or contract manufacturer | Sometimes sufficient for manufacturing claims, rarely sufficient alone for brand-controlled consumer marks without explicit IP language. | Letter describes production, not trademark or brand asset permission. |
If your strongest paper is from a middle party, attach the chain: excerpt of the agreement showing IP sublicense (redact unrelated commercial terms), plus the LOA addressed to your entity, so reviewers see authority in one thread.
Region and parallel trade
Some brands split the world by distributor territory, SKU rights, or warranty policy. An LOA that is valid in one region does not automatically bless listings elsewhere, even for identical UPCs.
- Territory-specific packaging or languages: if you import packaging meant for another market, the brand may authorize one region’s artwork but not another’s regulatory label block. The LOA should match the marketplace where the detail page is hosted.
- MAP, MRP, or selective distribution programs: commercial restrictions do not replace IP permission, but they explain why a brand may refuse language you want in the letter. Narrow Amazon-only language can unlock a “yes” faster than a global omnichannel grant counsel will not sign.
- Parallel import claims: when the dispute is framed as unauthorized import rather than counterfeit, the LOA must speak to the specific source of goods and the specific marks/images you display, not only that you “source authentic units.”
- Gray-market optics: if your commercial model is legitimate but looks gray-market on paper, expect heavier scrutiny of invoice-to-LOA-to-entity alignment. Precision reduces mistaken escalations.
This section is not encouragement to circumvent brand programs. It is a map of why otherwise “real” relationships still produce rejections until the letter’s geography, channels, and product scope match how you actually operate.
Presentation, signatures, and files
Amazon does not publish one public LOA layout, but defensible files usually share the same traits: licensor letterhead (not a blank PDF or chat export); visible issue date and clear effective date if different; signature from someone with apparent authority plus title and contact path; legible PDF or scan (or, where Seller Central allows it, a formal email from the rights owner’s domain that restates the five elements). If the letter is not in English, add a clean translation and keep mark names and ASINs identical across languages.
Digital signatures, chops, continuity: wet ink, DocuSign-style certificates, and company seals all appear in real submissions. What matters is that a reviewer can trace who signed, when, and that the file is not a pasted signature on a blank page. Pair seals with a human signatory line. Apostille or notarization rarely substitutes for missing grant language.
Files that get misread: password-locked PDFs (assume reviewers will not chase passwords); 200-page contracts without an excerpt and cover sheet; filenames that do not match the letter date; redactions that hide parties, marks, or term. Before upload, confirm the brand contact knows Amazon may reach out and will answer consistently with the letter. Surprise or conflicting answers are a common silent failure mode.
Entity mismatch is the usual failure mode. If your Seller Central legal name is “ABC Trading LLC” but the LOA names “ABC Store” without a defined relationship, expect friction. Fix naming on the LOA or obtain a short bridge letter from the brand explaining the mapping. Do not assume reviewers will infer the link.
If you are also in a verification loop, keep IP documents consistent with the entity Amazon is validating. Mixed naming across LOA, invoices, and account data is a common rejection pattern.
What to send the brand when you request an LOA
Brands move faster when you do not ask for “something for Amazon” in the abstract. Send a tight checklist they can hand to counsel or brand protection:
Exact string as on Seller Central (copy-paste from Account Info), plus store name if different.
List ASINs or product lines and each Amazon domain (e.g. Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk) where you need permission.
Call out what appears on the detail page: word mark, logo file, packaging shots, lifestyle images, A+ modules, so the grant is not accidentally narrow.
Ask for a start date, duration or “until revoked,” and state whether you need non-exclusive language by default.
Request one sentence that the licensor will respond to reasonable verification inquiries from Amazon regarding the letter.
Keep the email factual and short. Attach a screenshot of the Performance Notification only if it helps the brand understand urgency, not as a substitute for the LOA itself.
Optional clauses (when counsel agrees)
None of these replace the five core elements, but they reduce follow-up questions:
- Amazon-named channels (and other channels if true): removes “did ecommerce use count?” debates.
- Verification cooperation: licensor will respond to reasonable Amazon inquiries (aligns with what Seller Central encourages).
- Sublicensing: only if true; needed when a middle party signs.
- Creative updates: how new packaging or campaign assets are treated so the grant does not silently expire on a redesign.
- Exclusivity / territory language: when you are a regional or sole distributor and need the letter to match commercial reality.
- Quality or recall cooperation: supports a POA narrative but does not replace the IP grant.
- Change of control: only if true; keeps the letter alive after an acquisition.
What is not an LOA
Seller Central lists invoices, reseller agreements without IP language, retailer receipts, and similar records as not substitutes for an LOA. In practice, tax or resale certificates prove treatment, not trademark permission; order confirmations prove purchase, not logo or A+ rights; distribution agreements without explicit marks/assets still fail the authorization test; customs paperwork is logistics, not a license; chat screenshots are easy to dispute. Upload those items as supporting chain proof, not as the permission letter itself.
Common rejections (including real relationships)
| Issue | What to do instead |
|---|---|
| LOA lists products/SKUs but never names the marks or assets in dispute | Ask the brand to name the trademarks, logos, or copyrighted materials tied to your listings. |
| Signature from a junior contact on a free-email domain | Prefer signatory on corporate domain; add title and registered address on letterhead. |
| LOA is accurate but expired or revoked | Request a refreshed LOA with current term and marketplace list. |
| LOA covers the US store only, but the notice involves EU/UK ASINs | Obtain explicit multi-territory language or separate letters per region. |
| You attach the LOA but the POA contradicts it (wrong entity, wrong root cause) | Align narrative, exhibits, and account data before submission; one story across all files. |
| LOA grants “marketing use” but your listing runs Sponsored Brands / display using assets not covered | Either narrow ads to the granted assets or expand the written grant to cover paid placements you actually use. |
| Letter authorizes a different storefront than the one on the notice | Reissue with the correct seller identity, or add an exhibit mapping entities with the brand’s confirmation. |
Amazon’s reviewer is looking for verifiability and internal consistency (named IP, named seller entity, dated letter, plausible signatory). The brand’s counsel is looking for risk containment. When those goals conflict, “we authorized you” emails still fail until the letter adds precision: narrower geography, explicit Amazon use, non-exclusive language, rather than a longer appeal story.
If Amazon already rejected your LOA once, the fix is usually not a longer explanation in the appeal. It is closing the document gap Amazon is flagging: entity string, grant scope, term, territory, signatory path, or file integrity, and realigning the exhibit set.
LOA, POA, and exhibits
An LOA answers permission. It does not replace a Plan of Action or other narrative Amazon still needs: how listing or account conduct violated policy, what controls now govern sourcing and detail-page content, and what corrective actions match the violation (counterfeit, manipulation, safety, etc.). One document rarely closes the case.
For rights-owner complaints or retractions, keep every exhibit coherent with what the brand may tell Amazon. Counterfeit, patent, or court-track disputes need a broader strategy; involve qualified counsel where appropriate.
Reviewers often decide in minutes whether your packet is coherent. Structure attachments so the LOA is easy to find and explicitly tied to the narrative:
- Exhibit order: place the LOA next to the invoice batch that proves genuine sourcing for the same entity name; avoid scattering authorization on page 40 of an unrelated contract.
- Cross-references: one sentence in the POA body: “Exhibit A is the Letter of Authorization dated [date] from [Licensor] to [Licensee] covering ASINs [list or range].” Repeat the same date string as the PDF metadata when possible.
- No duplicate stories: if the LOA already states the marketplace list, do not contradict it in bullets that imply “global everywhere” selling.
- Counter-notice and retraction timing: when a rights owner is withdrawing a complaint or confirming authorization, Amazon still needs a durable written artifact. Email threads help as context; the LOA or signed PDF should still carry the five elements on its face.
- Escalations: if you escalate, assume a new reader. A one-page “index of exhibits” at the top of the log reduces the chance the LOA is never opened.
Weak vs. stronger grant phrasing
Small wording shifts change whether a reviewer can map the letter to the ASIN in front of them.
| Weaker phrasing | Stronger direction (still must be truthful) |
|---|---|
| “Seller is an authorized reseller of our products.” | “Licensee may use the registered marks [list] and Licensor’s standard packaging imagery for ASINs [or defined catalog line] on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk for genuine Licensor units sourced under [agreement or channel].” |
| “We have a business relationship with the seller.” | “Licensor grants the non-exclusive license described herein to [Licensee legal name] as of [date] for the term stated below.” |
| “They may use our brand online.” | “Online use is limited to Amazon product detail pages, Brand Store operated by Licensee for Licensor SKUs, and customer service templates provided by Licensor as of [date].” |
| “Worldwide rights.” | “Territory is limited to [explicit Amazon domains or countries] to match Licensee’s actual listings.” |
Pre-submission checklist
If any item below fails, fix the LOA or account data before you lean on appeal prose. Work top to bottom: entities, live listing scope, territory and term, then signatory and packet integrity.
- Party match: Licensee matches Seller Central legal entity (or one bridge letter maps them). Compare licensor and licensee strings to Brand Registry, invoices, and Account Info line-by-line.
- IP match: Open the live detail page: every mark or asset shown is named or clearly inside the grant, not only “resale.”
- Channel / ads: Amazon domains you sell on are covered; Sponsored Brands, A+, storefronts match the grant or you narrow activity.
- Territory and term: List every marketplace domain where the offer is active; term covers the enforcement window with no accidental past expiry.
- Signer: Credible for the licensor; reachable on-brand domain path; brand contact prepared to answer Amazon consistently if reached.
- POA / packet: Plan of Action and other exhibits do not contradict dates, entities, or scope; one index page helps escalations.
- Files: Unlocked PDF; filename matches letter date; redaction does not hide parties, marks, or term.
- On-page claims: Listing and ads do not assert broader rights than the letter.
Want a second set of eyes on the packet? We map LOAs to the notice Amazon actually sent: entity match, grant scope (marks, images, ads), term, territory, signatory authority, and whether your Plan of Action aligns with the same facts. Send the violation text and LOA draft for listing or account reinstatement support.
FAQ
What does a letter of authorization to sell on Amazon look like?
UK English often uses letter of authorisation; Amazon’s Help and US sellers usually say authorization. Either way, Amazon expects a license-style letter (not a one-line email) on the rights owner’s letterhead or equivalent, with the five key terms (Licensor, Licensee, Grant, Geographic Scope, Term) spelled out, plus signature or seal from an authorized signatory. For a structured outline aligned to Seller Central’s headings, use the collapsible template at the top of this guide (illustration only; counsel must draft your real letter).
Where do I submit a Letter of Authorization on Amazon?
For intellectual property policy violations, Amazon usually routes you through Account Health: open the violation in your Account Health dashboard and use the appeal or “submit documentation” path shown on that violation’s detail page. Fields and allowed file types differ by notice type, so follow the on-page prompts instead of attaching the LOA only to unrelated case logs or generic Seller Messages.
Can the brand send an email instead of a PDF letter?
Sometimes Amazon accepts a formal email from the rights owner’s domain that contains the same five elements and reads like a standalone authorization. Policies vary by path. When in doubt, also attach a one-page PDF on letterhead signed the same day.
Should the LOA list every ASIN?
When Amazon tied the notice to specific ASINs, listing them (or an explicit product line reference plus parent ASIN) reduces ambiguity. If you omit ASINs, the grant language must still be precise enough that a reviewer can map it to the suppressed listings.
Amazon rejected the LOA twice: what actually changes on attempt three?
Assume the reviewer is comparing attempt history. Change facts or documents, not adjectives: fix entity strings, widen or narrow marketplace scope to match reality, add the missing mark definitions, refresh dates, or supply the missing chain exhibit, then explain briefly what changed versus prior uploads.
We already got suspended: can we get a “retroactive” LOA?
Brands can issue letters effective from a past date only if that reflects the truth of the relationship. Backdating to cover conduct that was not actually authorized can backfire in verification. Prefer a letter that states the true start of authorization and explains any gap with facts the brand will confirm.
Can Amazon accept an LOA in a language other than English?
Often yes, but reviewers may request a certified or professional translation if material terms are unclear. If you submit both, keep terminology consistent across the original and translation.
Does a manufacturer authorization equal an LOA?
Sometimes, if it explicitly grants trademark/logo/listing-content rights for the relevant marketplaces and matches entities. A generic factory memo rarely substitutes for a clear IP grant.
Will Amazon always contact the brand?
Amazon does not guarantee every step publicly, but teams can verify authorization. Assume the brand may be contacted and that inconsistencies will surface.
Can I reuse one LOA across dozens of brands?
No. Each relationship needs its own grant tied to that licensor’s IP and your selling entity. “Blanket” letters without specific marks or parties usually fail.
What if the trademark owner is a subsidiary but the letterhead is the parent?
It can work when the relationship is explained on the face of the letter or in a single exhibit: which entity holds the registrations, which entity signs, and why that signer binds the IP. Unexplained parent/subsidiary hops read like a mismatch.
Does Transparency or Brand Registry messaging replace an LOA?
Program enrollment can strengthen authenticity signals for genuine goods, but it does not automatically substitute for a written grant of mark and asset use to your selling entity when Amazon is asking for authorization documentation. Treat programs as complementary, not a swap-in.
We have ten distributors under one LOA: can we share it?
Usually no. If the letter names another distributor as licensee, it does not authorize your entity. Each seller of record typically needs its own grant or a clearly sublicensed path from a party that may sublicense.
ASA Compliance Group helps sellers assemble enforcement-ready submissions. Educational content only; obtain documents from the rights owner and counsel for legal disputes.