Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Hoping to have his account reinstated and continue selling on the site, Govani put off the decision. He received a total of 11 emails from Amazon each giving him different dates at which time his inventory would be destroyed if he hadn't removed it.

> "After being unable to resolve the matter following several appeals as part of our dispute resolution process, we informed this seller six separate times that they needed to remove their inventory from our store by specific dates or it would be destroyed," she said. "The seller failed to request to remove their inventory by the dates provided."

I understand the core point here -- Amazon does have the upper hand when making deals with 3rd party sellers. But this is on the seller: he stored his inventory at Amazon, who decided they want to break their deal -- then he failed to move his inventory after what seems like a very lengthy communication, so they ended up doing what they said they would.



You left out the part where he tried to recall the inventory and it didn't work.


Sounds like he left it to the last minute though hoping that the account would be reinstated. Given the fees to remove he wouldn’t have wanted to until it seemed certain that he wasn’t getting the account back.

There are companies like shipbob now which are essentially as good as FBA from a 3PL perspective. Just miss out on Amazon pushing FBA stock over cheaper competing offers.


Given that the judiciary report also has an example of someone being unable to remove their inventory, I think you’re giving credit where none is due.


The first mistake was dealing with amazon.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: