You bought it new. The complaint is about what the customer opened, which is a later question.
For cases we accept: the complaint and return evidence, the condition path through receiving, storage and returns, and inspection records that show the control is running.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On condition files we trace the unit through returns and fulfilment, then build the inspection gate in Seller Central.
Include the affected orders and return reasons, photographs of the unit and packaging, and how returns are handled today. 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 condition matters alone. Details under Proof.
Customers reported signs inconsistent with the New condition standard. Opened or damaged packaging, a broken seal, fingerprints or scratches, missing protective film, prior activation, missing accessories, another person's data, odours, wear, or a returned unit put back on sale.
The allegation is about the condition of the unit the customer opened. That is a different question from where the goods came from, and it is the reason purchase paperwork cannot settle it: it does not describe what happened to the unit after it arrived.
Condition can change at four points, and the investigation has to say which:
Supplier packaging that does not survive transit, or units that were already handled upstream.
Receiving, preparation, labelling and storage. Seals broken to inspect and not replaced is the classic.
Handling, packing, and the inbound preparation that decides how a unit is identified and stored.
The single most common origin. A returned unit goes back to sale without passing a gate that would have caught it.
Amazon's guidance on this condition sets out what buyers are entitled to expect from a New offer. Note one date that changes the analysis: the barcode and commingling requirements changed on 31 March 2026, and the new ones apply to inventory shipped on or after that date. A complaint arriving now can still concern units shipped under the earlier regime, so the date neither rules commingling out nor assumes it. Check the inbound date and the barcode assignment on the actual shipment before deciding. Where the condition complaint is about age rather than handling, the shelf-life requirements are set out on the expired products page.
Each has a different origin and a different control. The complaint text usually points at one of them precisely enough to start.
The commonest and the least dramatic. Packaging that arrived crushed, was opened to verify contents and never restored, or is simply not robust enough for the journey it makes.
Test the packaging standard against the route, not against the warehouse. A box that survives a pallet and fails a single-unit dispatch is a real finding and a fixable one. Where the wrong product arrived rather than a mishandled one, the lane is wrong item complaints.
Tamper-evident features exist so a customer can see the unit is untouched. Once broken, nothing about the unit being genuinely unused is visible to them, and the complaint is correct from where they are standing.
The branch that produces most repeat complaints, because a single missing gate keeps producing them. A return is not a resellable unit until something checks it, and a disposition code is a classification rather than an inspection.
An unopened-looking box is not evidence either. The gate has to be a documented check with a pass, a fail, and somewhere for the failures to go.
The customer receives the product and not everything that should be with it. A cable, a manual, a mounting kit, a warranty card. From the buyer's side this reads as a used unit that someone has already taken parts from.
Compare the received unit against the bill of materials and the packing standard rather than against the product photograph. The photograph is what created the expectation; the bill of materials is what defines it. If the unit is complete but is not the product the page describes, that is a different item case.
The most serious version, and the one that cannot be argued away. A device already registered to someone, a serial already claimed, or personal data left on it. There is no reading of that which is consistent with a new unit.
This branch needs serial-level control: which serials were received, which shipped, which came back, and what happened to each on return. Where the product also failed to work, the case may be a defect complaint as well as a condition one.
Reviewers are asking what happened to the unit. Most rejected responses answer what the seller intended to sell.
Documents showing the goods were bought new. They cannot describe the condition after storage, handling and returns, which is what was complained about.
Amazon is named as the cause before inbound condition, packaging, labelling, returns and the complaint pattern have been checked.
The offer is closed while units sit in fulfilment centres and the return-to-sale path is untouched.
Better quality control offered with no acceptance criteria, no records, no named owner and no rule for what fails.
The general idea of new is argued while the category's own condition standard, activation and warranty indicators go unaddressed.
Mixed inventory offered as the explanation without checking the shipment. The requirements changed on 31 March 2026 and apply to inventory shipped on or after that date, so the inbound date and the barcode assignment decide whether it is even available.
Follow one unit the whole way. The point where it stopped meeting the standard is the case, and it is usually findable.
Start from the complaints themselves: return reasons, buyer comments, Voice of the Customer and negative customer experience data, order identifiers where you have them, and the affected product and code. Complaints usually describe the failure precisely, and the pattern across them narrows the origin faster than any internal record.
Then photograph what you still hold. The unit, the packaging, the seal, the protective film, the accessory set. Purchase records belong in the file as context and never as the answer, because they say nothing about the state of the unit after it reached you. Sourcing paperwork carries a case only in the authenticity lane, not this one: see inauthentic product violations.
The centre of the file is a single traced journey, not a description of the process. Take one affected unit and record what happened at each step:
The step where the standard was lost is the finding. If the journey cannot be reconstructed for any unit, that is itself the finding, and it is a more honest one than a process description.
Define the scope from evidence rather than instinct. The complaint pattern, the fulfilment channel, the shipment or lot, the return history and a sample inspection together bound what is at risk. Removal samples are the most direct evidence available, because they are the actual units.
Contain at the narrowest scope the evidence supports, and widen it if the risk cannot be isolated. Blanket removal without a scope decision is not caution, it is an absence of analysis, and it reads that way.
A condition control is a checklist with teeth: intact manufacturer seals, a clean undamaged unit, complete accessories and manuals, the correct model and identifiers, unaltered packaging, no signs of prior use, and any functional or date check the product needs.
Each check records the inspector, the date, the result, any exception and the disposition. Failed and uncertain units go somewhere specific, and that destination is part of the control. A written procedure with no completed records is a draft, and describing it as implemented is the fastest way to lose the reviewer.
If the return gate does not exist yet, say so. That is a workable finding and a fixable one; a described control that no record supports is neither.
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 condition 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 used sold as new, start with the questionnaire.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
