Strategy
A written plan built for your notice and your case history, not a template.
Account Health
•
Review Manipulation
•
Since 2016
Amazon says you manipulated reviews We build the evidence-backed response and run the submission for you.
Founder-led since 2016. If the odds are not there, we tell you in writing instead.
Answer the questionnaire and a real person reads it. You get our read on the case, what we would argue, and the fee, before you pay anything.
ASA Compliance Group handles Amazon enforcement end to end: account and listing reinstatement, regulatory and legal support, run by the same team that writes the appeal and answers Amazon's replies.
Your notice
What this notice actually means
Amazon has concluded that reviews on your listings were influenced rather than earned. The trigger is often indirect: a package insert, a third-party service you used, a review-gating message, or a pattern its systems associate with incentivised reviews.
You will usually not be told which reviews or which behaviour caused it. Sellers who did nothing deliberate still get these notices, frequently through an agency or software vendor acting on their behalf.
01. It is about the channel, not the reviews
Amazon is judging the mechanism that produced the reviews: the insert, the message, the vendor, the incentive. The reviews themselves are the symptom it noticed.
02. You are responsible either way
An agency, a launch service or a virtual assistant acting on your account is treated as you acting. Whether you knew is not the question Amazon is deciding.
03. The window matters
Every message you send becomes part of the case log. A rushed denial in the first hour is the thing a later, accurate submission has to work around.
Seller Central reality
Why these appeals get rejected
Denying the pattern
The first submission says no reviews were bought. Amazon is not weighing that claim, so nothing in the file changes and the rejection reads as generic.
Promising to comply
The second attempt adds a Plan of Action full of intentions. Every corrective action is written in the future tense, so there is nothing a reviewer can verify today.
Contradicting the earlier message
The third attempt finally names the vendor or the insert. It now conflicts with the first two submissions, and the inconsistency itself becomes the reason to hold the account.
We stabilise what is already in the case log before submitting anything new, then rebuild the response around the mechanism, the evidence that it stopped, and the control that replaced it.
Already appealed
Your first appeal came back rejected
A large share of the cases we take start here. A rejection is not the end of the case, but it does change the job: the next submission has to account for what you already said.
The file is now the subject
Amazon is reading your submissions against each other. Before anything new goes in, the contradictions between them have to be resolved deliberately, not quietly dropped.
Repetition reads as no change
Resending a similar appeal with stronger wording signals that nothing operational happened. The second submission has to contain something the first did not.
Escalation has a shape
There is a difference between escalating with new verifiable facts and escalating by volume. The second one shortens the runway on the account.
We have reviewed your submission and do not have enough information to reactivate your account at this time.
Typical rejection wording, paraphrased
Evidence
What actually carries a review manipulation case
Amazon reinstates when it can see that the behaviour is identified, ended, and structurally prevented. Every item below is something a reviewer can check outside your own account.
01
The mechanism, named exactly
Which insert card, which message template, which agency, which incentive or rebate platform. Naming it precisely is what separates a credible response from an apology.
02
The full order-level record
Order IDs, the messages that went out, and any payments made. Partial disclosure is worse than none, because Amazon can already see what you left out.
03
Proof it has stopped
Terminated vendor agreements, disabled links and flows, inserts pulled from inventory in the warehouse, and the revised insert that replaced them.
04
The control that replaced it
A written review-compliance policy, the approval step new packaging now passes through, and dated training records for the people who handle it.
What does not carry this case:
- A statement that you never paid for reviews. Amazon is assessing a pattern, not your intent.
- Screenshots of positive customer feedback or long trading history.
- The reviews themselves. They are what Amazon noticed, not what settles the case.
What you get
What handling your case actually involves
One owner on the Seller Central thread, from the notice through to resolution.
The submission
Plan of Action, evidence package, and the submission itself, placed in the queue Amazon can act on.
Follow-through
Follow-ups and escalation are ours. If Amazon needs several cycles, we run several cycles.
Before you pay
You see the strategy and the fees first. If the odds are not there, you get that in writing instead.
Proof
Who is doing the work
ASA Compliance Group has been founder-led since 2016. Or Shamosh builds the strategy on every case we accept.
Historical reinstatement rate
independently verified
98%
Reinstatement rate on cases we accepted and fully managed. Independently reviewed by a third-party verifier (publicly traded).
Cases handled
since 2016
5,500+
Account-level and ASIN-level enforcement across global marketplaces.
Speed
first reply
Within about an hour
First human reply within about an hour in most cases. Review timelines vary by queue and issue type.
Scope
all included
End to end
Full strategy, full package, unlimited follow-ups and revisions within scope, calls, escalations, and internal routing when needed.
Questions
Review Manipulation appeals: common questions
I never bought reviews. Why am I being accused?
Most of these cases are not deliberate. Insert cards asking for honest reviews, review-gating flows, and third-party tools all produce the same signal. The response has to identify the actual mechanism rather than deny intent.
An agency ran my reviews. Am I still responsible?
Yes, Amazon holds the account owner responsible for anything done on the account. It is still worth stating plainly, because the corrective action is credible when it names what changed.
Amazon wiped a batch of reviews at the same time. Is that part of this?
Usually yes. Amazon strips the reviews it associates with the pattern as part of the same enforcement. That is its action, not something you are asked to do, and it is not what the appeal is judged on. The appeal is judged on the mechanism you identify and the control you put in its place.
My first appeal was rejected. Can this still be recovered?
Often, yes. We start by stabilising the case log, resolving contradictions between what you have already sent, and then rebuilding the submission around evidence Amazon can verify.
What do you need from me to start?
The exact notice text, every appeal you have submitted, Amazon's replies, and an honest account of any review-related tooling or inserts you have used.
Other enforcement types
We handle enforcement across every lane
Different notices need different evidence. If your case is not the one on this page, start here.