Deactivated After False “Counterfeit” Claims – Despite Proof and Manufacturer Support
Hi everyone,
We’re hoping someone here can advise or has faced something similar. Our UK-based account was recently deactivated due to three “Counterfeit” complaints linked to a popular supplement brand. However, the products were 100% genuine — sourced directly from the manufacturer in the USA via their authorised UK distributor.
We’ve provided Amazon with:
- The manufacturer’s authorisation chain (to distributor, then to us)
- Letters of Authorisation
- Clear proof of authenticity
- Communications confirming the brand asked the complainant to retract the claims
The issue began when a competing seller contacted us demanding we stop selling these items. When we professionally requested proof of exclusive rights, none was given. Instead, they filed IP complaints under “Counterfeit” — a categorisation we believe was deliberately chosen to trigger an account shutdown.
That same seller:
- Placed multiple orders with us
- Left negative reviews on each, all of which were removed by Amazon for being abusive
-Returned the exact same items for refund — we recorded all returns showing they were genuine
Despite Amazon removing the malicious feedback, our account remains fully deactivated, even though both the manufacturer and supplier confirmed the product is genuine and authorised.
This feels like a serious flaw in enforcement: using the “Counterfeit” flag not for IP protection, but for commercial suppression of competition. We’ve done everything by the book and still face severe business consequences.
Has anyone managed to resolve similar abuse of the counterfeit reporting system? We’re actively appealing, but Amazon’s process seems stuck in “evaluation.”
Thanks,
A UK Seller
Deactivated After False “Counterfeit” Claims – Despite Proof and Manufacturer Support
Hi everyone,
We’re hoping someone here can advise or has faced something similar. Our UK-based account was recently deactivated due to three “Counterfeit” complaints linked to a popular supplement brand. However, the products were 100% genuine — sourced directly from the manufacturer in the USA via their authorised UK distributor.
We’ve provided Amazon with:
- The manufacturer’s authorisation chain (to distributor, then to us)
- Letters of Authorisation
- Clear proof of authenticity
- Communications confirming the brand asked the complainant to retract the claims
The issue began when a competing seller contacted us demanding we stop selling these items. When we professionally requested proof of exclusive rights, none was given. Instead, they filed IP complaints under “Counterfeit” — a categorisation we believe was deliberately chosen to trigger an account shutdown.
That same seller:
- Placed multiple orders with us
- Left negative reviews on each, all of which were removed by Amazon for being abusive
-Returned the exact same items for refund — we recorded all returns showing they were genuine
Despite Amazon removing the malicious feedback, our account remains fully deactivated, even though both the manufacturer and supplier confirmed the product is genuine and authorised.
This feels like a serious flaw in enforcement: using the “Counterfeit” flag not for IP protection, but for commercial suppression of competition. We’ve done everything by the book and still face severe business consequences.
Has anyone managed to resolve similar abuse of the counterfeit reporting system? We’re actively appealing, but Amazon’s process seems stuck in “evaluation.”
Thanks,
A UK Seller
1 reply
Seller_y27n22ytFVEFK
This is incredibly frustrating to read. We went through something almost identical under a different supplement brand. The word counterfeit is being thrown around as a tactic to block competition and Amazon's system seems to let it happen even when sellers follow the rules.
Did you manage to get this escalated to a real decision-maker or legal contact at Amazon? We’re very keen to know if anyone here has successfully reversed a suspension when they had full proof from the manufacturer and distributor.
This kind of case deserves way more attention. Following closely.
