Sellers filed a class action lawsuit, and the Ministry of Commerce responded again to Amazon's account ban

According to foreign media reports, seven Shenzhen cross-border e-commerce companies have collectively sued Amazon, hoping to recover the funds that were seized after their accounts were blocked. The news sparked heated discussions, and many sellers did not stand in line with the company. At the same time, the Ministry of Commerce once again responded to Amazon's account blocking, expressing support for companies to take reasonable measures to protect their legitimate rights and interests . How will things develop?

The Ministry of Commerce once again responded to the account blocking incident

Yesterday , many media reported the latest developments in the Amazon account suspension incident. According to the latest published court materials, on September 13, several Chinese sellers filed a class action lawsuit, accusing Amazon of banning accounts and withholding funds on the grounds of cracking down on cashback for positive reviews.

Many sellers have suffered heavy losses from penalties such as brand cancellation and fund freezing . Plaintiffs such as Sopownic and Deyixun seek to "recover funds improperly withheld by Amazon in an illegal manner" and "prevent any further misappropriation and abuse of legitimate and legitimate funds belonging to thousands of Amazon sellers and merchants" through class action lawsuits.

In late July, the Ministry of Commerce responded to the Amazon account suspension incident for the first time, believing that it was a temporary "incompatibility". On September 30, at a regular press conference held by the Ministry of Commerce, a media asked, "The Amazon account suspension incident is continuing to ferment. What impact will it have on foreign trade companies? What countermeasures does the Ministry of Commerce have?"

Shu Jueting, spokesperson of the Ministry of Commerce, said that the Ministry of Commerce has been paying close attention to the measures taken by some foreign e-commerce platforms against some Chinese platform companies and has taken positive measures to help and guide companies to respond effectively. The Ministry of Commerce has guided Shenzhen and other places to introduce support measures, provided legal aid, promoted foreign e-commerce platforms to provide follow-up services to Chinese companies, and carried out special cross-border e-commerce training to help companies better familiarize themselves with platform rules.

Shu Jueting said that from the current situation, China's cross-border e-commerce is still growing rapidly overall. The next step will be to encourage enterprises to diversify their operations, help them improve their risk control level, strengthen their connection with international economic and trade rules and standards, and firmly support enterprises to take reasonable measures to protect their legitimate rights and interests. At the same time, we will continue to strengthen the construction of the credit system and promote the healthy development of the industry.

Sellers’ view: Is fake ordering justified ? Or is Amazon’s penalty too light?

The lawsuit has not yet been concluded, but the news has sparked heated discussions among a large number of domestic sellers. People are arguing fiercely, and their opinions can be roughly divided into two categories:

1. Some sellers are relatively "radical" and directly express their views: It's what they deserve. Is it justified to fake orders? Amazon's fine is still too light!

Previously, when Amazon banned fake order sellers, many sellers believed that the platform rules should be followed, that mistakes should be punished, and that everyone should compete in a fair environment. Now, it seems that these people and the "radicals" this time are likely to have the same idea, and they all said:

“——You have the nerve to sue me for fake orders ;

——Amazon rules do not allow cheating, and you did the opposite , so you deserve to be blocked ;

—Rules are rules;

——Fairness means taking care of those sellers who make a living by their real ability, and we must crack down on fake orders;

——The punishment was too light, not completely wiping out the sellers, giving some so-called big sellers a chance to breathe;

——Honest sellers can also unite to support Amazon in rectifying the chaos in the market.”

One of the sellers shared his experience: "We are a small seller team of more than a dozen people in East China, mainly engaged in platforms other than Amazon. It's not that we haven't tried Amazon before, but when we wanted to make good products according to the platform's rules, we encountered countless black technology and bad reviews, which made it impossible for those who made serious products to turn around. So I support Amazon's ban this time, which gives more opportunities to regular operators."

This may be the voice of tens of millions of sellers. According to feedback from sellers in the industry, Chinese sellers have been playing pranks on each other for a long time.

As an old seller in the industry said, to a certain extent, fair competition is just a decoration. Many people will maliciously attack the links of their peers, and the peers will fight back. This kind of atmosphere must not be encouraged. Amazon's strict inspection can just kill this bad atmosphere and reduce violations.

But there are also different voices on Amazon's handling of frozen funds.

2. Another group of sellers believe that Amazon’s approach is “one size fits all” and those whose accounts have been blocked should have the courage to safeguard their own rights.

In the many cases where accounts were blocked due to violations of platform rules, it is inevitable that some sellers were innocently caught. For example, in the platform's several crackdowns on fake orders, sellers who had never violated the rules were also caught, and their accounts were restored only after a series of appeals. According to veteran sellers in the industry, when Amazon's system detects violations, it will automatically operate, and it is inevitable that there will be misjudgments.

Some of those who were caught in this massive account suspension operation by Amazon claimed that they were innocent, while more sellers did manipulate reviews. After the account was suspended, the platform froze funds, which caused dissatisfaction among many sellers.

The seven companies that sued Amazon also hope to recover the withheld funds. Some sellers, who are in the same camp, feel the same way and believe that Amazon is "forcing a one-size-fits-all approach" and that the sellers involved should defend their rights.

One seller said that having his store closed for fake orders is a punishment he deserves, but having his funds and goods withheld is not. Sometimes Amazon has overbearing terms, and if sellers don’t resist, they will be at the mercy of others. Chinese sellers should have the courage to take up legal weapons to protect their legitimate rights and interests. This type of seller believes:

“——The account is blocked, but why freeze the funds?

——Directly detaining account funds is tantamount to robbery ;

——It is wrong to fake orders, but the account funds are not from Amazon , so the money should be returned . ”

Regarding the funding issue, Amazon officially responded that the sellers’ frozen funds will be returned after 90 days. As for the outcome of the lawsuit, some sellers admitted that the plaintiff had violated the rules and Amazon had evidence in its hands, so they could not win the lawsuit.

Een.com does not hold any opinion on the above sellers’ views. The trigger of the account suspension incident was the manipulation of reviews. Amazon has been frequently cracking down on fake orders, but it is not ruthless in the rectification.

Multiple removed links are back on sale

Two weeks ago, a large number of Amazon stores received warnings for violating the review policy and their products were suspended. Amazon requires sellers to detail the following in their action plans:

1. A detailed description of all methods used by the seller to post or obtain customer reviews that are prohibited by Amazon policy;

2. The contact information (name, email address, website, etc.) of any third parties hired by the seller to obtain prohibited reviews or manipulate reviews;

3. Identification information of all buyer accounts where the seller or third-party user posted prohibited reviews;

4. A list of all banned reviews on the Amazon website.

To recruit or not? All the sellers are hesitant. Some reported that they were rejected by Amazon after admitting to fake orders. Other sellers dare not act rashly and can only wait and see.

In the past two days, the sellers who were warned were pleasantly surprised to find that the links that were removed due to fake orders have been restored to sale one after another, and the relevant backend performance warnings have also disappeared. "Amazon has relented, and many people's links have returned." A seller said, but the prerequisite is that they must admit that there was indeed fake order behavior. The purpose of the platform is not to punish, but to clean up illegal operations.

In e-commerce retail, third-party platforms and merchants complement each other. Platforms are not perfect, and sellers who want to develop on the platform for a long time must also abide by the compliance requirements. To achieve a win-win situation, the two sides need more running-in.

Sue Amazon