Is Amazon’s 75% Reimbursement for Lost FBA Shipments a Widespread Issue? Breach of Policy Concerns
Are Amazon FBA Partial Reimbursements for Lost Shipments a Common Issue? Policy Compliance Concerns
Hello Amazon UK FBA Seller Community,
I’m reaching out to understand how many sellers are experiencing partial reimbursements for lost inbound FBA shipments, despite providing robust documentation. Specifically, I’ve noticed Amazon reimbursing less than the full Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) for shipments they claim were not received, even with comprehensive evidence. I’m concerned this might be a widespread issue and want to explore whether Amazon’s practices align with their reimbursement policy and UK law.
My Documentation Process
To address claims of non-receipt, I’ve implemented a thorough process:
Photographic evidence of each SKU prepped and packed.
Complete box contents photographed during packing.
Signed and verified packing slips included with each shipment, confirming inventory.
Photos of completed boxes with labels stating:
“Warning: Due to repeated claims of non-receipt of inventory into Amazon warehouses, we have photographically documented: Each SKU prepped, complete contents of the box, included a verified and signed packing slip, photographed the completed packaged box, and photographed the courier collection. Any missing inventory claimed will be addressed as this issue has occurred frequently.”
UPS tracking confirming delivery to Amazon’s fulfillment centers.
Despite this, Amazon often reimburses less than the documented COGS, even after escalations. According to Amazon’s FBA reimbursement policy (effective March 10, 2025), reimbursements for lost inbound shipments should reflect the manufacturing cost (cost to source or produce the product, excluding shipping, handling, and customs duties) as per submitted invoices (Key Amazon Reimbursement Policy Details, Changes, and Updates | Carbon6). My invoices align with this definition, yet reimbursements fall short.
Potential Breach of Amazon’s Policy and UK Law
Amazon’s policy allows sellers to submit their own manufacturing cost documentation, and reimbursements should match this if compliant. However, consistent under-reimbursement suggests Amazon may be breaching their policy by:
Misapplying the Manufacturing Cost Definition: If invoices clearly document the manufacturing cost (excluding non-eligible costs like shipping, which are deducted from my seller account via UPS), partial reimbursements deviate from the policy, potentially breaching the FBA agreement.
Ignoring Proof of Delivery: UPS tracking confirms delivery, shifting risk to Amazon per FBA terms. Claiming non-receipt despite evidence may violate the policy’s obligation to process claims fairly.
Under UK contract law, the FBA agreement governs this relationship. Key legal principles include:
Breach of Contract: Failure to reimburse the full manufacturing cost as per compliant invoices may breach the FBA agreement. Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43 emphasizes contracts must follow clear terms, and Amazon’s policy explicitly supports documented costs.
Good Faith: Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) implies a duty of good faith in commercial contracts. Under-reimbursing or dismissing tracking evidence may breach this duty.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA): If Amazon’s policy application (e.g., arbitrary reductions) is deemed unfair, UCTA could apply, though challenging given standard FBA terms.
Passing of Risk: Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 supports risk transferring to Amazon upon delivery, strengthening claims when tracking confirms receipt.
Questions for the Community
How common is partial reimbursement? Are others receiving less than their documented COGS for lost shipments despite strong evidence?
Escalation success? Have you successfully challenged under-reimbursements via Seller Central or Seller Support? What evidence or approaches worked?
Policy compliance issues? Has anyone noticed Amazon deviating from their March 2025 policy by under-reimbursing or ignoring delivery evidence?
Legal or mediation steps? Has anyone pursued mediation or legal action under UK contract law? Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 303 encourages mediation, which I’m considering.
Tips for full reimbursement? Any strategies for formatting invoices or presenting evidence to ensure Amazon honors the full manufacturing cost?
Why This Matters
Partial reimbursements impact profitability, especially with frequent occurrences. The 60-day claim window (effective January 9, 2025) makes timely action critical. If Amazon’s practices deviate from their policy, this could affect many UK FBA sellers, and collective discussion might encourage fairer application of the policy under UK law.
Please share your experiences or strategies for navigating this issue. Let’s explore if this is a systemic problem and how we can ensure compliance with Amazon’s terms.
Note: I’m considering mediation if internal escalations fail, supported by cases like Bunge SA v Nidera BV and Yam Seng. Has anyone pursued this successfully?
Is Amazon’s 75% Reimbursement for Lost FBA Shipments a Widespread Issue? Breach of Policy Concerns
Are Amazon FBA Partial Reimbursements for Lost Shipments a Common Issue? Policy Compliance Concerns
Hello Amazon UK FBA Seller Community,
I’m reaching out to understand how many sellers are experiencing partial reimbursements for lost inbound FBA shipments, despite providing robust documentation. Specifically, I’ve noticed Amazon reimbursing less than the full Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) for shipments they claim were not received, even with comprehensive evidence. I’m concerned this might be a widespread issue and want to explore whether Amazon’s practices align with their reimbursement policy and UK law.
My Documentation Process
To address claims of non-receipt, I’ve implemented a thorough process:
Photographic evidence of each SKU prepped and packed.
Complete box contents photographed during packing.
Signed and verified packing slips included with each shipment, confirming inventory.
Photos of completed boxes with labels stating:
“Warning: Due to repeated claims of non-receipt of inventory into Amazon warehouses, we have photographically documented: Each SKU prepped, complete contents of the box, included a verified and signed packing slip, photographed the completed packaged box, and photographed the courier collection. Any missing inventory claimed will be addressed as this issue has occurred frequently.”
UPS tracking confirming delivery to Amazon’s fulfillment centers.
Despite this, Amazon often reimburses less than the documented COGS, even after escalations. According to Amazon’s FBA reimbursement policy (effective March 10, 2025), reimbursements for lost inbound shipments should reflect the manufacturing cost (cost to source or produce the product, excluding shipping, handling, and customs duties) as per submitted invoices (Key Amazon Reimbursement Policy Details, Changes, and Updates | Carbon6). My invoices align with this definition, yet reimbursements fall short.
Potential Breach of Amazon’s Policy and UK Law
Amazon’s policy allows sellers to submit their own manufacturing cost documentation, and reimbursements should match this if compliant. However, consistent under-reimbursement suggests Amazon may be breaching their policy by:
Misapplying the Manufacturing Cost Definition: If invoices clearly document the manufacturing cost (excluding non-eligible costs like shipping, which are deducted from my seller account via UPS), partial reimbursements deviate from the policy, potentially breaching the FBA agreement.
Ignoring Proof of Delivery: UPS tracking confirms delivery, shifting risk to Amazon per FBA terms. Claiming non-receipt despite evidence may violate the policy’s obligation to process claims fairly.
Under UK contract law, the FBA agreement governs this relationship. Key legal principles include:
Breach of Contract: Failure to reimburse the full manufacturing cost as per compliant invoices may breach the FBA agreement. Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43 emphasizes contracts must follow clear terms, and Amazon’s policy explicitly supports documented costs.
Good Faith: Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) implies a duty of good faith in commercial contracts. Under-reimbursing or dismissing tracking evidence may breach this duty.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA): If Amazon’s policy application (e.g., arbitrary reductions) is deemed unfair, UCTA could apply, though challenging given standard FBA terms.
Passing of Risk: Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 supports risk transferring to Amazon upon delivery, strengthening claims when tracking confirms receipt.
Questions for the Community
How common is partial reimbursement? Are others receiving less than their documented COGS for lost shipments despite strong evidence?
Escalation success? Have you successfully challenged under-reimbursements via Seller Central or Seller Support? What evidence or approaches worked?
Policy compliance issues? Has anyone noticed Amazon deviating from their March 2025 policy by under-reimbursing or ignoring delivery evidence?
Legal or mediation steps? Has anyone pursued mediation or legal action under UK contract law? Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 303 encourages mediation, which I’m considering.
Tips for full reimbursement? Any strategies for formatting invoices or presenting evidence to ensure Amazon honors the full manufacturing cost?
Why This Matters
Partial reimbursements impact profitability, especially with frequent occurrences. The 60-day claim window (effective January 9, 2025) makes timely action critical. If Amazon’s practices deviate from their policy, this could affect many UK FBA sellers, and collective discussion might encourage fairer application of the policy under UK law.
Please share your experiences or strategies for navigating this issue. Let’s explore if this is a systemic problem and how we can ensure compliance with Amazon’s terms.
Note: I’m considering mediation if internal escalations fail, supported by cases like Bunge SA v Nidera BV and Yam Seng. Has anyone pursued this successfully?
0 replies
Seller_76AUwmqvSyRIM
Very thorough indeed.
All I can say is good luck and I hope you have deep pockets. Amazon I am sure believes that you don't.
Seller_Gt0uYQhC8FGRU
I’ve had this issue twice in the space of a month and sheer incompetence or is what it is either that or Amazon employes thieves, first 4 units wear lost and I got a reimbursement for 60% of my sourcing cost now according to Amazons own policy what they kindly guided me to multiple times it states under the manner of which my units wear lost “before even being processed by FBA” my units wear not scanned once by Amazon, it states 100% of my sourcing cost will be reimbursed and that policy is very clear on this so I made Amazon well aware of this which they already know because they are just plain as day robbing folk left right and centre by this ridiculous policy and amounts they reimburse for our lost products because let’s face it they are not lost they have to be there because the box literally gets opened and processed no doubt by 1 person so how can they get lost unless they are getting stole, and even after providing all the evidence of ownership and things they still would not give me 100% all you get off customer support is “it’s per our policy” and they guide you too it 😂 I’m baffled as to what policy they go by because the policy they guided me to is very clear on 100%, now today I’ve another 12 units lost out of 1 shipment/box of 144 units, how on earth is it possible to loose 12 units when all 144 units wear in 1 box and what’s the bets that I do not get 100% of my sourcing costs back even after raising my case the the managing director, it’s as if Amazon do this on purpose just so they can keep the product and sell it for full price and give us %60 of our money back so it’s always big bad Jeff bazos that’s in the profits, now imagine you send in a £100k shipment in for them to loose £25ks worth and you only get reimbursed 60-75% of your sourcing cost back, now that’s absolutely crazy and will damage any business and I know in that instance you can go the legal route but that will still cost you so even in the end your still at a loss, it’s absolutely day light robbery.
