Whatever the notice alleges, it is still a specific claim with a specific answer.
For cases we accept: which of the five routes produced it, the unit and serial evidence, the upstream chain, and the rights-owner position.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On counterfeit files we build the product and supply-chain record and run the route in Seller Central.
Include the complaint identifier if there is one, who alleged it, and your sourcing records. Four short steps. Or Shamosh reads every intake.
Or Shamosh · Founder and lead strategist
5,500+ enforcement cases since 2016. Every intake is personally assessed before acceptance.
Send what you have, including prior DIY or agency appeals. We say what is viable in writing before you commit.
Questionnaire
If the questionnaire does not load, open intake on the account page.
* Across ASA’s accepted and fully managed enforcement cases (all notice types we take on), not counterfeit matters alone. Details under Proof.
That the product is an unauthorized imitation, or not a genuine product of the brand it represents. How serious it is depends on what the notice actually alleges, and the consequences it carries are set by that wording rather than by the word counterfeit, which is exactly why the response has to be a record rather than a denial. Where the action has reached account level, the wrapper may be a Section 3 deactivation. Treat that as a separate account-level wrapper sitting alongside the counterfeit evidence rather than as a statement that the agreement has been terminated.
One belief does more damage here than any other: that without a test buy there is no evidence. Amazon may act on a customer complaint, a rights-owner report, invoice or supplier verification, a serialisation issue or a packaging discrepancy, and it need not disclose a test buy. Arguing the absence of one is not a defence and it consumes a cycle.
Five routes produce this notice, and each asks for something different:
One buyer reported it. The order, the returned unit, the packaging and the serial are the case.
The brand reported it. Verification of the complainant, the right and the route matters before anything else.
Amazon looked at a unit. Answer the exact discrepancy observed, if it is disclosed.
A code or a pack detail did not reconcile. Codes, enrolment and inventory source have to line up.
The fifth is supplier verification failing, which shades into the traceability lane. Amazon's anti-counterfeiting policy sets the requirement, and its invoice requirements govern what sourcing evidence has to look like to be usable at all.
Two neighbouring pages answer questions this one deliberately does not. Where the allegation is about traceability and invoices rather than about the goods being fake, that is an inauthentic notice. Where a rights owner has asserted a mark, that is a trademark complaint.
Knowing which of these produced the notice decides the entire file, and it is usually inferable from the wording.
A buyer reported the product as fake. Often the most tractable version, because there is a specific order, a specific unit and frequently a return to examine.
Get the returned unit if it exists. It is the actual object in dispute, and no amount of documentary evidence substitutes for examining it.
The brand or its agent filed. Verify the complainant, the right asserted, the complaint identifier and the route before contacting anyone. An unsupported accusation or an admission sent early can close off the options that were available.
Where the objection turns out to be about the market the goods were made for rather than their authenticity, the lane is parallel import, and where it is about how the mark is used, trademark infringement.
A serial, lot, device identifier or transparency code did not match what was expected. This is specific and answerable: reconcile the code, the unit, the brand enrolment, the packaging and the inventory source.
The pack does not look like the brand's current one. This genuinely cuts both ways: it can support the allegation, and it can equally reflect a legitimate manufacturing or regional change.
What settles it is brand-linked, date-specific evidence tying the observed pack to a real change. An assumption that it is a normal variation is not evidence, and neither is the seller's confidence that the goods are genuine.
Amazon could not verify the supplier or the upstream source. A legitimate-looking supplier with a registered company and a professional website does not close a traceability gap, and this is where most files run out of evidence.
Where the supplier will not disclose its own source, document the identity, the transaction, the request and the refusal, then look for independent records that establish the chain. If none exist, the response should state the limit rather than fill it.
Reviewers want a verifiable record. Most rejected responses offer confidence instead.
Amazon can act on several other signals and need not disclose a purchase. The absence of one establishes nothing.
Sent without supplier verification, upstream source, quantities, identifiers or product-to-listing mapping.
Packaging photographs offered as proof of authenticity. Appearance is what a good imitation reproduces.
Accusations or admissions sent before the complaint identity and route have been checked.
A supplier, lawyer or complainant saying they will withdraw. Only a retraction actually filed through Amazon's channel counts.
Length and sincerity offered where a verifiable chain was asked for. It reads as an absence of one.
The unit, the chain, and the complaint route. A strong file has all three and says honestly where each stops.
Record the notice, any complaint identifier, the affected listings, the rights owner's identity if one is named, any test-buy information disclosed, and every prior appeal. Then identify which of the five routes produced it, because that decides whether the burden is examination, verification, authorization or retraction.
Product and packaging photographs from every angle, serial, lot, device identifier or transparency codes, model and identifier mapping, and examination of retained or returned units. This is the evidence most often skipped and most often decisive, because the allegation is about objects.
Original invoices covering the relevant dates and quantities, supplier identity and verification, authorization or distribution evidence, and the records that connect the supplier to the brand or manufacturer:
A direct invoice shows a purchase. What is often being tested is what sat above your supplier, and that is a different showing with different documents.
Where a rights owner filed, a retraction can be decisive, and it has to be actually submitted through Amazon's accepted channel for each complaint identifier. An agreement to retract is not the completed event, and building a plan around one that has not been filed is how weeks disappear.
Not every counterfeit case originates that way. Where it did not, there is nobody to retract and the answer is the product and chain evidence. And a withdrawn complaint removes that complaint rather than resolving other issues that may remain open.
If the upstream chain genuinely cannot be established, say so. A file that states its limit and addresses inventory and future sourcing is workable; an invented upstream record is a permanent second problem.
Scoped historical outcomes on cases we accepted and fully managed. One seller voice below; deeper galleries live on account reinstatement.
Population: historical cases ASA accepted and fully managed (we prepared the compliance response and ran follow-ups in Seller Central). The figure combines reinstatement and restoration work across notice types in that managed population, not counterfeit matters alone. Declined intakes and self-serve template buyers are not in the rate.
Success: reinstatement or restoration of the privileges Amazon had restricted for that file (account, listing, verification, funds, or related, depending on the case). Amazon decides every outcome; the rate is not a guarantee for future cases.
Review: the underlying records were independently reviewed. Verified as of .
More methodology context and galleries: account reinstatement proof.
“In less than 24 hours after the appeal, my account was reactivated with all products available for sale.”
More outcomes and video proof: account reinstatement proof.
For sellers who already have the Performance Notification. Broader questions: full FAQ library.
If Amazon received a counterfeit claim against your listing, start with the questionnaire.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
