The notice names a contract clause. It often does not name the conduct, and the conduct is the case.
For cases we accept: a dated chronology across every notice and marketplace, the dominant lane identified, and one focused request per decision.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On Section 3 files we reconstruct the account record, identify the underlying lane and run the submission in Seller Central.
Include the deactivation notice, any earlier notifications, the Account Health record and every prior appeal. 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 Section 3 matters alone. Details under Proof.
Citing Section 3 tells you Amazon acted under the agreement's suspension or termination provision and, on its own, almost nothing about why. It is not a violation type, and it is not a statement that the relationship has ended. The work is identifying which underlying issue is being acted on, because that is what the response has to answer. One common underlying issue has its own page: where the account was actioned over pricing, the fair-pricing analysis is on the price gouging page.
Section 3 is the suspension and termination provision in Amazon's Business Solutions Agreement. It is a contractual clause, not a violation type, and it is not an intellectual-property category. Citing it tells you Amazon has terminated under the agreement and, on its own, almost nothing about why.
A Section 3 notice may sit on top of deceptive or fraudulent conduct, identity concerns, supply-chain concerns, linked-account risk, review abuse, prohibited products, customer harm, or another severe lane. Some notices name the concern. Many give very little, and that is not a defect to argue about but a condition to work in.
So the work runs in this order, and every step taken out of it costs a review cycle:
Every notice, the Account Health record, the case logs, prior appeals and replies, across each affected marketplace. Before drafting anything.
Which underlying issue is controlling, and on what basis. The dated chronology usually answers this without speculation.
Reinstatement, funds, verification and any listing matter are separate asks with separate evidence. Do not merge them.
That reconstruction covers the account history, the affected marketplaces, related notifications, the funds state, the Account Health record, verification events and every prior appeal. Amazon's code of conduct sets the obligations most of these lanes sit under.
Each of these produces the same clause and a completely different file. Identifying which one is the whole first phase.
An invoice or record that appeared manipulated, or could not be validated at source. Frequently the document was obtained by someone acting for the seller, which changes the explanation and not the responsibility.
The practical burden here is usually narrower than the clause suggests: document provenance, who produced it, and what controls now sit on submissions. A broad essay about the account answers none of that.
The clause wraps a sourcing problem. The review then behaves like a traceability case even though the notice reads as something graver, and the evidence that moves it is supplier verification and chain of supply: see inauthentic product violations.
Ownership, access, entities or a connection to another account. Where a linked account is named or implied, the sequencing matters and the analysis is related accounts.
This branch needs entity, ownership, payment, address and access records rather than a narrative, and it is one where guessing at Amazon's theory reliably makes things worse.
An act Amazon reads as working around its systems or misrepresenting something. Identify the specific act, the benefit sought, who was involved and what evidence Amazon plausibly holds, before deciding whether the posture is corrective or a dispute.
Amazon may review disbursement eligibility separately from the selling account, with its own notice, timeline, evidence and reviewers. Treating them as one decision is one of the commonest structural errors in these files.
Track each as its own decision with its own status and deadline, keep the facts consistent across both, and do not tell a seller that reinstatement settles the funds question, because it does not automatically.
There is no standard Section 3 response, and most rejections are of something written as though there were.
A three-part plan of action addressing Section 3 itself, without identifying the conduct or verification burden underneath it.
Section 3 read as automatically meaning fraud, or automatically meaning inauthentic products. It means neither by itself.
Multiple submissions opened and the explanation changed before the account record was reconstructed, leaving contradictions on the log.
Amazon gave no proof, argued while risk signals elsewhere in Seller Central go unanswered.
Reinstatement, funds, identity verification, listings and linked accounts combined into a single unfocused submission.
A virtual assistant or agency named as responsible. It may be true and it does not transfer the obligation.
Reconstruct first, choose the lane second, and ask for one decision at a time. Every step out of that order costs a cycle.
The exact deactivation notice, every performance notification, the Account Health record, case logs, prior appeals and Amazon's replies, across every affected marketplace. This is the phase people skip and it is the phase that decides everything after it.
Then a dated chronology tying each Amazon event to the seller action that preceded it. The pattern of dates frequently identifies the lane on its own, without anyone having to speculate about what Amazon found.
State which underlying issue is controlling and on what basis, because that decides which records matter:
Where the notice genuinely does not say, present the strongest supported reading and label it as that. Stating a speculation as though it were Amazon's finding is worse than acknowledging the uncertainty.
Account reinstatement, funds disbursement, identity verification and any listing matter are separate decisions, often with separate notices, deadlines, evidence and reviewers. Track each with its own current status and requested action.
Keep the facts identical across all of them. Inconsistency between two submissions on the same account is itself a finding, and it is the most avoidable one in this lane.
Where a contractor, employee or agency was involved, the records matter: permissions, access history, document provenance, communications. They establish the chronology and what has changed.
They do not transfer responsibility, and a response built on blame reads as one. What does work is the same facts framed as control: what happened, what governs it now, and what evidence shows the control is real.
Send what you have rather than waiting to assemble everything. The first useful output is the chronology, and it can usually be built from the notices alone.
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 Section 3 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 deactivated your account under Section 3, send us the notice and the account history.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
