The documents were real and they were rejected. That usually means they answered a different question.
For cases we accept: what the notice is testing, invoice-to-listing mapping, supplier verification, and the upstream chain as far as it goes.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On inauthentic files we establish the burden, map the documents and run the submission in Seller Central.
Include the notice, the listings named, your invoices, and every prior appeal with Amazon's replies. A real person reads it and replies in writing.
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.
Case review form
If the form does not load, open the contact form.
* Across ASA’s accepted and fully managed enforcement cases (all notice types we take on), not inauthentic matters alone. Details under Proof.
That Amazon cannot verify the units offered or fulfilled came through a legitimate, traceable supply chain. It is a documentation and traceability finding first. It does not automatically mean Amazon has concluded the products are counterfeit.
The trigger can be a customer authenticity complaint, an invoice review, a supplier-verification failure, a quantity mismatch, an identifier mismatch, or an account-level investigation. The notice usually names listings and asks for sourcing records, and rarely says which of those is the actual burden.
Six things it could be testing, and the documents differ for each:
Whether the invoiced item is the item on the listing. Model, pack size, identifiers.
Whether the documents cover the period under review and the volume sold or held within it.
Whether the named supplier exists, trades, and can be reached and verified by Amazon.
Whether the buyer named on the documents is the entity behind the selling account.
Whether payment and delivery records show the goods actually moved from that supplier to you.
Where Amazon requires it, whether the chain reaches the brand or an authorised distributor.
More than one can be tested at once, and a combination is not a seventh burden: it is several of the six being applied together. Amazon's invoice requirements set what sourcing evidence has to look like before it is usable, and its anti-counterfeiting policy sits behind the lane. Where imitation is actually asserted rather than traceability, it is a counterfeit claim.
Each of these produces the same notice wording and a different evidence burden.
A buyer questioned whether the item was genuine. One complaint does not automatically deactivate an account, and it does open the sourcing question for the listing it names.
Work the complained-about order specifically: the unit, the packaging, any serial or lot, and the path that unit took. A general defence of the listing does not answer a specific order.
The documents were reviewed and did not satisfy the requirement. This is the most common branch and usually the most fixable, because the gap is identifiable:
Never modify a document to close a gap. An edited invoice converts a traceability question into a document-integrity finding, which is a much worse position and one that follows the account.
The documents do not cover the volume sold, or the invoiced item does not map to the listing. Map model, colour, size, pack count, identifier, code and quantity across every affected listing.
Where the documents genuinely cover only part of the volume, disclose that and explain the rest with records: opening stock, later purchases, returns, transfers. An unexplained gap undermines an otherwise sound package.
Your supplier is real and cannot or will not show where they got the goods. This is a genuine traceability gap rather than a formatting problem, and it is the hardest branch.
Preserve the request and the refusal, look for independent records, and if the chain cannot be established, say so and address current inventory and future sourcing. Never write an authorization letter that does not exist.
Earlier appeals told different stories. The sourcing account changed, or the supplier was blamed in one and defended in another. The case log is cumulative and reviewers read it.
Reconstruct what has already been said before writing anything new. A later truth does not erase an earlier inconsistency, and the fastest way to lose a recoverable case is to add a third version.
Reviewers are testing a specific traceability burden. Most rejected responses send documents without establishing which one.
Documents submitted without connecting line items, quantities, dates, models and identifiers to the listings under review.
The document looks right and the supplier cannot be verified or cannot say where the goods came from.
Retail receipts, order confirmations, pro forma documents, payment screenshots or records outside the period named.
Few complaints, the items looked genuine, nobody returned a fake. None of that is traceability evidence.
The supplier named as at fault with no evidence, often while the same supplier is relied on elsewhere in the file.
A generic plan of action submitted while documentary contradictions are still unresolved underneath it.
Establish the burden, then map every document to it. The mapping is what converts paperwork into evidence.
Record the exact notice, the listings named, the marketplace, and every prior appeal with Amazon's replies. Read the rejection language line by line: it usually says which of the six burdens is controlling, in terms that are easy to skim past.
Original, unaltered invoices, except for any redaction the notice expressly permits, covering the relevant period and enough units to support the sales or inventory under review, with a mapping that a reviewer can follow without inference:
Where quantities do not fully cover the period, explain the difference with records rather than leaving it to be noticed.
Registration records, operating footprint, contactability, and the transaction records that show the supplier actually participated. Then upstream: manufacturer or distributor records, authorization, brand confirmation, customs, receiving, or serial and lot data where the invoice alone does not close it.
Where a rights owner is involved rather than a verification failure, the route may be a trademark question or a parallel import one, and a promise to retract is not a filed retraction.
The submission has to sit consistently on top of everything already said. Where an earlier appeal was wrong, correcting it deliberately is far better than a third version that contradicts both.
Where the notice is account-level rather than listing-level, the wrapper may be a Section 3 deactivation, which is a broader diagnosis with its own sequencing.
If a document does not exist, say so. A stated gap can be worked with; a document created to fill it cannot be withdrawn.
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 inauthentic 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 flagged your products as inauthentic, send us the notice and what you have already submitted.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
