A seller's path through mediation under EU marketplace rules

When Amazon Italy restricted a seller's listings and froze the account pending review, the initial notice said almost nothing useful. The reason given was vague. The timeline was open-ended. And the seller – a mid-market Italian brand selling its own products on Amazon IT – had inventory already in Fulfillment by Amazon warehouses and a supplier invoice coming due. As enforcement automation has tightened across EU-designated platforms, that combination of opacity and commercial pressure has become a recurring pattern in the matters we handle.

TL;DREU marketplace rules – primarily the Platform-to-Business Regulation and the Digital Services Act – give sellers on platforms like Amazon IT concrete procedural rights: a statement of reasons before restriction, access to an internal complaint-handling system, and the right to invoke mediation through a qualified external mediator. These rights do not guarantee reinstatement, but they create a defined, enforceable procedural path that many sellers have never been told exists.

This case study traces one seller's path through that process on Amazon IT: what actually happened legally and commercially, the decisions the seller faced at each stage, and the lesson for other EU marketplace operators facing a suspension they cannot readily explain.

What was the situation – and what was really at stake?

The restriction had two components, and separating them early was critical to the strategy. First, several product listings had been delisted on product-safety grounds under the General Product Safety Regulation. Second, the broader account had been placed under a performance review that blocked new disbursements. These were legally distinct problems with different remedies, even though they arrived in the same notice.

The seller's commercial exposure was significant in the way that most mid-market FBA businesses experience it: the frozen balance covered roughly six weeks of operating cash flow, and the delisted SKUs were the core of the catalogue. The temptation – which we see regularly – was to treat this as a standard Amazon appeal and file a Plan of Action through Seller Central. That would have been the wrong tool.

What the seller was actually facing was a restriction that had to comply with the Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation first. Under the P2B Regulation, Amazon as a platform providing intermediation services to business users established in the EU is required to state the reasons for a restriction or termination in the notice itself, with sufficient clarity that the seller can understand which specific conduct or content triggered the action. The notice the seller received did not meet that standard. That gap was the first lever.

What do EU marketplace rules actually require from Amazon IT?

The P2B Regulation – in force across the EU and directly applicable to Amazon's marketplace-facing business – sets out minimum procedural guarantees for sellers designated as business users. Amazon, as a platform operating in Italy and across the EU, must comply with these obligations regardless of what its own Business Solutions Agreement says about governance or dispute resolution.

The key obligations in a restriction or delisting scenario are these. Amazon must provide a statement of reasons for the restriction at the time it takes effect, identifying the specific grounds – whether a policy breach, a safety concern, or a legal obligation – and the facts and circumstances that led to the decision. It must also maintain an internal complaint-handling system that business users can access free of charge to challenge the restriction. And, critically, it must identify at least two mediators that business users can engage if the internal complaint process does not resolve the matter.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), under which Amazon is designated as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), adds a further layer. Under the DSA, Amazon must explain content moderation decisions – including listing removals – in a statement of reasons, and must provide access to an internal redress mechanism. The DSA's out-of-court dispute settlement pathway for VLOP-level decisions is a distinct right from the P2B mediation path, and understanding which applies to which type of restriction is not always obvious.

For a deeper structural account of how these instruments interact for EU sellers, our EU marketplace regulation guide for sellers sets out the full architecture of rights across the P2B Regulation, the DSA, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

What were the seller's decision points before mediation?

The seller had three realistic options at the point we got involved, and mapping those options clearly was the first thing we did. None of them was risk-free. The decision turned on timing, the strength of the statement-of-reasons gap, and what the seller needed commercially.

Option one was to engage the internal complaint-handling system first – the path the P2B Regulation contemplates as the primary escalation route before mediation. This is not a restatement of the standard Seller Central appeal. It is a formal written complaint invoking the seller's rights as a business user under EU law, addressed to the internal complaints function and citing the specific P2B deficiency in the original notice. The advantage is speed: if the platform acknowledges the procedural gap and issues a compliant statement of reasons, the seller gains the information needed to respond substantively. The risk is that the internal process produces a formulaic response that restates the restriction without adding clarity.

Option two was to move directly to mediation. The P2B Regulation allows business users to initiate mediation with one of the qualified mediators Amazon is required to identify, without first exhausting the internal complaint route. In practice, we find that skipping the internal complaint step is rarely the right move at the outset: it removes a data point about the platform's position and can complicate the mediator's assessment of whether internal options were genuinely exhausted.

Option three was to handle the GPSR listing-safety issue and the account-level disbursement hold in parallel, as legally distinct tracks. That is the path we recommended. The safety-delisting issue on individual SKUs would be addressed through the DSA's statement-of-reasons and internal redress process, while the broader account restriction – which had its own P2B basis – would go through the formal internal complaint route first, with mediation held in reserve.

The parallel-track approach reflects a pattern we see regularly in EU-based restrictions: platforms often bundle a substantively defensible action (a safety-grounds listing removal that may be technically correct) with a broader account-level measure that has weaker procedural grounding. Challenging only the broader measure – while engaging constructively on the substantive safety issue – often produces a faster partial resolution.

How the mediation process actually moved

The internal complaint on the account restriction was submitted in writing, citing the specific P2B obligation on statement of reasons and identifying the factual gaps in the original notice. Amazon's internal complaints team responded within the platform's stated handling period. The response acknowledged the restriction but did not substantively address the statement-of-reasons deficiency. That response was, in procedural terms, a useful document: it confirmed the internal route had been engaged and produced a result the seller could legitimately characterize as unsatisfactory for the purposes of initiating mediation.

Mediation under the P2B Regulation is conducted through mediators identified by the platform in its terms and conditions – Amazon is required to name at least two. The mediator must be impartial and the process confidential; each party bears its own costs, and the platform must engage in good faith, though it is not legally required to reach agreement. This is an important calibration point for sellers: mediation under EU rules is not arbitration, and it does not produce a binding decision. What it produces is a structured, documented dialogue in which the platform must justify its position to a neutral third party.

In this matter, the mediation session focused on two questions: whether the statement of reasons in the original notice met the P2B standard, and whether the account-level disbursement hold was proportionate to the underlying concern. The platform's representative provided a more detailed account of the factual basis for the restriction than had appeared in the original notice. That information was operationally significant – it identified a specific fulfilment-history data point that the platform's system had flagged, and which the seller could address directly with evidence.

The mediation process did not result in an agreed resolution at the session. What it produced was a clearly scoped set of information that allowed the seller to respond substantively to the actual basis for the restriction, rather than guessing. A targeted response – focused on the specific data point identified in mediation – was submitted through Seller Central within a week of the session. The account-level hold on disbursements was lifted within the period following that submission. The delisted SKUs required a separate GPSR compliance documentation exercise, which was resolved on a different timeline.

For context on how product-safety and compliance grounds for listing removals operate on Amazon ES – a closely related surface – our article on responding to EU listing takedowns on safety grounds on Amazon ES covers the procedural steps in detail.

What the outcome looked like – and what it did not look like

The commercial result was the release of the frozen balance and the ability to resume selling on the active SKUs. The safety-compliance delisting on a subset of products was not resolved through the mediation path; it required the seller to produce updated technical documentation for those products, which took additional weeks. We work to identify and separate these tracks precisely because conflating them leads sellers to expect one process to resolve what are actually two distinct legal problems.

An EU mediation process for a mid-market seller on a single surface – the situation described here – does not look like a court case. There are no formal pleadings. There is no judge. The mediator does not render a decision. What the process provides is a documented procedural record showing the platform was required to engage, and a more complete account of the factual basis for the restriction than the original notice contained. That is not nothing: in the matters we handle, the single most common reason a seller cannot mount an effective response is that the original notice did not tell them what they actually did wrong.

If you are facing a restriction on Amazon IT or another EU surface and the notice does not explain the real reason, the internal complaint and mediation path may be the fastest way to find out what the platform's actual concern is. To discuss your specific situation, contact us at info@tutamenlaw.com.

The broader strategic lesson for EU marketplace sellers

The myth many EU sellers carry into a dispute is that the platform's decision is final once it is taken – that the only option is to comply, wait, or leave. That is not accurate. The P2B Regulation and the DSA have created a procedural infrastructure that did not exist under the old regime, and that infrastructure has teeth precisely because platforms must document their compliance with it.

What changes when a seller invokes these rights formally is the platform's internal dynamic. A restriction that is handled through a generic Seller Central appeal produces a generic response. A formal P2B complaint that cites the statement-of-reasons obligation and references the internal-complaints-system requirement produces a different kind of engagement – one that is handled by a different team with different compliance obligations. The strategic implication is that the choice of procedural vehicle matters as much as the substance of what you say.

That said, the P2B mediation path is not a universal solution. It is most effective where the procedural deficiency in the notice is clear, where the seller has a substantive answer to the underlying concern once that concern is properly disclosed, and where the seller's commercial timeline is compatible with a process that takes weeks rather than days. Where the account has a more complex history – related-account flags, multiple prior restrictions, or a safety issue that genuinely requires new technical documentation – the mediation path may need to run in parallel with other remedial work rather than serve as the sole route.

For CE marking and safety-compliance delisting specifically – a distinct but related issue that frequently arises on Amazon DE alongside account-level restrictions – our analysis of why CE marking complaints lead to delisting on Amazon DE explains the compliance documentation logic in detail.

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) gatekeeper obligations are a further layer that becomes relevant for sellers on Amazon's largest EU surfaces. DMA gatekeeper provisions operate at the level of platform architecture and access terms rather than individual account decisions, but they inform the regulatory context in which Amazon must respond to formal complaints. A seller who understands the full regulatory map is better positioned to choose the right lever for the specific restriction they face.

What sellers in this situation should do first

If your account on Amazon IT – or any EU surface – has been restricted, suspended, or had listings removed under safety or policy grounds, the first question is whether the notice you received meets the P2B standard. That means checking whether it identifies the specific ground, the specific conduct or content at issue, and the facts and circumstances that led to the decision. If the notice is general, incomplete, or boilerplate, you have a procedural basis to act before you address the substance.

The second question is whether the restriction involves multiple legally distinct components – a listing-level safety issue, an account-level hold, a disbursement freeze – that need to be separated and handled on different tracks. Treating a multi-component restriction as a single appeal problem is one of the most common errors we see sellers make when they go through the process alone.

The third question is timing. The P2B Regulation and DSA create rights that are available now, but the internal complaint and mediation process takes time, and some commercial damage – delayed disbursements, missed inventory cycles – accumulates while the process runs. Engaging the process quickly is almost always better than waiting.

If a first internal complaint already came back with a formulaic response that did not address the procedural gap, that response is not the end of the road. It is the document you need to initiate mediation. For a review of where your matter stands and what options remain open, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Related areas

• EU Marketplace Regulation – full practice area covering DSA, P2B, DMA, and GPSR for EU sellers
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – Plan of Action strategy and appeal work across all Amazon surfaces

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving mediation under EU marketplace rules usually take on Amazon IT?

The timeline varies depending on how quickly the internal complaint step is concluded and when a mediator can be scheduled. The internal complaint process typically takes several weeks before a response is received. Arranging and conducting a mediation session adds further time. In the matters we handle, sellers should plan for a process measured in weeks to a few months from the initial complaint to a substantive outcome – though partial resolutions, such as release of a disbursement hold, can occur before the full process concludes.

What are the main risks if I handle mediation under EU marketplace rules alone?

The primary risk is procedural: misidentifying which instrument applies to which component of the restriction, or invoking the mediation path without first documenting the internal complaint step, which can undermine the procedural record. A second risk is substantive: disclosing information in mediation that strengthens the platform's position on an issue you have not yet resolved. A third risk is timing – accepting an informal engagement from the platform's account team in place of the formal P2B process, which gives up procedural rights without a binding result.

Do I need a lawyer for mediation under EU marketplace rules?

You are not legally required to have legal representation in P2B mediation. In practice, the value of attorney-led engagement is in structuring the procedural argument correctly before the process starts, separating legally distinct components of a restriction so they are handled on the right tracks, and avoiding disclosures in mediation that complicate subsequent steps. For straightforward single-issue restrictions where the notice is procedurally deficient and the substantive facts are clear, a seller with good documentation can engage the process effectively. Where the restriction is multi-component, involves a prior history on the account, or connects to a safety or IP issue requiring external evidence, legal support significantly improves the quality of the process.

About Tutamen

Tutamen is an independent law firm for online marketplace sellers. We represent Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay sellers in account deactivations, frozen-funds recovery, intellectual-property disputes, arbitration and Notices of Dispute, and US federal Schedule A defense, plus EU marketplace regulation. Our work is attorney-led and confidential, with fees quoted up front. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. We engage formally with the P2B Regulation's internal complaint and mediation procedures, the DSA's redress mechanisms, and the DMA's gatekeeper obligations on behalf of EU and UK sellers. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Claire Donnelly – arbitration & disputes analyst, Tutamen

Published September 6, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marketplace policies and the law change, and every account and case is different. For advice on your situation, contact Tutamen at info@tutamenlaw.com.

Page authored by Claire Donnelly, Arbitration & Disputes Analyst, Tutamen.