Mediation under EU marketplace rules: what to do, step by step

TL;DRMediation under EU marketplace rules is a structured, platform-facilitated process that gives marketplace sellers a defined right to challenge a suspension, a delisting, or a restriction of their account before an independent mediator – rights created by the Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation and reinforced by the Digital Services Act (DSA). On Amazon IT, this path is available but rarely self-explanatory: the seller must trigger it correctly, supply the right evidence, and understand where the internal complaint phase ends and external mediation begins. Getting those steps wrong is the most common reason the process stalls.

A suspension on Amazon IT arrives as a policy notice, sometimes overnight. The listings go dark. Inventory already in an Italian fulfillment center is frozen in place. The instinct – to click "appeal" immediately and write a long explanatory email – is understandable, and almost always wrong. The P2B Regulation and the DSA give EU-based sellers a procedural toolkit that most platform notices do not advertise. Using it in the right sequence is the difference between a process that moves and one that circles indefinitely. This guide sets out the exact step sequence and the decision points where things go off track.

What follows covers: what mediation under EU marketplace rules actually is and how it differs from Amazon's internal appeals; the realistic procedural path from first notice to mediation; and the seller's key decision points, including when to negotiate, when to escalate, and when specialist input changes the outcome.

What does "mediation under EU marketplace rules" actually mean on Amazon IT?

Mediation under EU marketplace rules is not Amazon's internal appeals process – it is a legally mandated external recourse available when the internal complaint process has failed or stalled. The P2B Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1150), which applies across the European Union including Italy, requires platforms like Amazon to identify and commit to at least two external mediators in their terms. Amazon must publish those mediators in its Amazon Business Solutions Agreement applicable to EU sellers. A seller who has exhausted the internal complaint route without resolution has a right to take the dispute to one of those named mediators.

This is a meaningful distinction. In matters we handle, many sellers conflate the internal Amazon IT complaint system with the external mediation entitlement. They are separate procedural tracks. The internal complaint is the first required step – it is a condition precedent to valid external mediation. Skipping or rushing it does not save time; it creates a gap in the procedural record that the mediator can use to defer jurisdiction.

The DSA layers on top of the P2B framework. Amazon IT, as part of the Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) Amazon network under the DSA, is required to issue a statement of reasons for any restriction or suspension directed at a seller or a listing. That statement is not a courtesy – it is a document with legal weight. It defines the factual and policy basis for the measure, and the seller's internal complaint and, later, any mediation filing, must engage directly with what the statement says. A response that addresses different grounds than those stated will not displace the restriction.

What triggers the mediation right? Any restriction of access to the platform's services: account suspension, listing removal, ranking demotion when it is material and systematic, or refusal to reinstate. An ordinary content moderation decision on a single listing may or may not meet the threshold, depending on whether it is presented as a systemic account-level measure. That threshold question is one of the first things we assess when a seller comes to us with a notice from Amazon IT.

What is the internal complaint step, and why does it matter so much?

The internal complaint system is the formal gateway that must be used, and documented, before external mediation is available. Amazon IT operates an internal complaint-handling system as required by Article 11 of the P2B Regulation. For the external mediation right to be validly invoked, the seller must have submitted a complaint through that system and either received a refusal or received no meaningful response within a reasonable period.

What qualifies as a "meaningful response" is a judgment call that matters in practice. An automated acknowledgment is not a response on the merits. A form letter that restates the original decision without engaging with the seller's submission is not a resolution. In matters we handle on Amazon IT, we regularly see sellers told their case has been "reviewed" without any indication of which ground was reviewed, what evidence was considered, or on what basis the decision was maintained. That kind of non-answer preserves the seller's complaint right rather than extinguishing it.

The complaint submission itself should do three things. First, it should directly address the grounds stated in the Amazon statement of reasons – line by line if necessary. Second, it should introduce any evidence the seller holds that bears on those grounds: invoice chains, compliance documentation, authorization letters, test reports. Third, it should record the date and the method of submission. That record becomes the chronological spine of any subsequent mediation filing. A seller who cannot point to a dated, substantive internal complaint has a procedurally weaker mediation case, regardless of the underlying merits.

Sellers often ask whether they can skip straight to the external mediator if Amazon is clearly in the wrong. The answer is no, not effectively. A mediator operating under the P2B framework will look first at whether the internal route was genuinely pursued. If it was not, the mediator can and often will direct the parties back to the internal process before engaging on the substance. That round-trip costs weeks. It is faster to build the internal complaint correctly once.

How do you formally invoke the external mediation right?

Once the internal complaint is documented and has either been refused or has gone unanswered for a reasonable period, the seller can formally invoke the external mediation right by contacting one of the mediators Amazon has committed to in its EU terms. The first practical step is identifying which mediators Amazon has named in the version of its terms applicable to the seller's account – the BSA for EU sellers. That list can and does change, and the operative version is the one in force when the dispute arose.

The mediation request should be submitted in writing. It should contain: a summary of the restriction or suspension and the Amazon reference or case number; a copy of the statement of reasons (or the notice, if no formal statement was provided); a record of the internal complaint submission and the response received; a clear statement of what outcome the seller is seeking; and the factual and regulatory grounds on which the seller says the restriction was unjustified. Mediators operating under P2B have no obligation to develop a seller's case for them – the seller (or their lawyer) must frame the claim.

Language is a practical issue on Amazon IT. Amazon's terms for Italian sellers may allow submissions in Italian or English, but the mediator's procedural rules control. Many mediators operating in this space accept submissions in English; some operate in multiple EU languages. Confirming the language rules before filing avoids a procedural defect at the outset. If documentation is in Italian – such as a registration with the Camera di Commercio or an ENEC certificate – we work with appropriate local counsel to ensure translations and formatting meet the mediator's requirements.

An apparel brand seller on Amazon IT (spring 2026) came to us after an account-level restriction had been in place for several weeks. Amazon's statement of reasons cited a policy violation but did not specify which listing or which policy provision was engaged. We drafted the internal complaint to force a specific answer on the factual basis, received a more particularized response, and used that response to frame the mediation filing around the actual grounds – rather than a broad denial. The process moved to substantive engagement at mediation in a materially shorter time than the seller's earlier, unassisted attempt had taken.

What happens during the mediation process itself?

External mediation under the P2B framework is a facilitated, non-binding process unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. The mediator does not issue a binding ruling. The goal is to bring Amazon and the seller to an agreed resolution. That design has practical consequences for how a seller should approach it.

Because the mediator cannot compel Amazon to act, the seller's leverage is entirely a function of the quality of their factual and regulatory record. A seller who has a documented internal complaint, a clear statement of reasons to respond to, and evidence that Amazon's stated ground is not supported – or is disproportionate under DSA Article 11 – is in a different negotiating position than a seller who shows up with a printout of the original notice and a letter saying they disagree. In our practice, preparation before the mediation filing is the stage where the outcome is most influenced.

The mediator will typically set a procedural timetable: written submissions from the seller, a response from the platform, and a facilitated dialogue phase. Amazon, as a VLOP, is required by the DSA to engage in good faith with its internal complaint system and, under P2B, with named mediators. "Good faith engagement" has been interpreted to mean substantive participation, not nominal acknowledgment. Where a platform does not engage substantively, the mediator has procedural tools to record that fact, which can be relevant if the dispute later moves to other forums.

What can a mediation resolve? It can result in reinstatement of the account or listing, a modification of the restriction (for example, a listing-level rather than account-level measure), an agreed remediation plan, or a negotiated exit. It can also result in no resolution, leaving the seller to consider other options including the formal regulatory complaint routes available under the DSA (to the EU Digital Services Coordinator) or litigation. Mediation does not foreclose those options – it is not a waiver of other rights unless the settlement agreement expressly says otherwise, and even then only to the extent permitted by applicable law.

Where do sellers most often go wrong in this process?

The most common error is responding to the account notice with the same messaging used for a standard Amazon US reinstatement appeal – a Plan of Action (POA) structured around Amazon's internal rubric, without engaging the P2B or DSA procedural architecture. That approach treats an EU regulatory process as a Seller Central support ticket. The result is that the seller submits something Amazon can process through its automated appeal workflow, which is not the same as exhausting the internal complaint right under the P2B Regulation. The seller believes they have completed the prerequisite when they have not.

A second failure point is timing. The P2B Regulation does not set a hard statutory deadline for invoking mediation, but delay weakens the practical record. If weeks pass between the internal complaint refusal and the mediation filing, Amazon may argue the seller's commercial urgency is overstated, affecting how the mediator weighs proportionality arguments. Acting promptly preserves the leverage that the regulatory framework provides.

A third error is submitting compliance documents without linking them to the statement of reasons. A seller suspended for a product safety ground on Amazon IT may hold a full CE marking file, test reports, and a declaration of conformity – and still lose the complaint because those documents were presented as a general demonstration of compliance rather than a specific rebuttal of the factual grounds Amazon stated. Our EU listing takedown on safety grounds response checklist addresses exactly this gap: each document needs to be mapped to the specific allegation in the statement of reasons.

The myth that EU sellers have no leverage once a platform suspends them is precisely that – a myth. The P2B Regulation and the DSA impose meaningful procedural obligations on Amazon. A seller who uses those obligations in the right sequence has tools that do not exist on Amazon US. The difficulty is not that the leverage is absent; it is that the process is unfamiliar and the standard Amazon IT support channels are not designed to surface it.

What are the decision points and trade-offs at each stage?

At the internal complaint stage, the key decision is how specific to be. A narrow, precise complaint that engages the actual stated grounds is harder for Amazon to deflect than a broad objection. The trade-off is that a narrow complaint limits the scope of the internal review to the grounds raised. If the seller discovers additional regulatory issues later, they may need a supplemental complaint. The general rule we apply: lead with the most documentable objection, and preserve – but do not lead with – the broader proportionality argument for the mediation phase.

At the mediation filing stage, the decision is whether to engage on the merits only, or also to raise DSA proportionality. The DSA requires that restrictions on professional users (business sellers) be not only justified but proportionate. An account-level suspension for a listing-level violation is a classic proportionality target. Raising it requires a developed argument, but it shifts the framing from "was the violation real?" to "was this response appropriate?", which is often a stronger position.

If the notice cites a safety compliance ground – such as a failure to provide GPSR documentation or a CE marking deficiency – the route is a documented rebuttal with the underlying compliance file, mapped to the statement of reasons, submitted as the internal complaint with a short deadline attached. If it cites instead a general policy violation without specifics, the route is a formal request for particulars under P2B Article 4 (the statement-of-reasons obligation), followed by the complaint once Amazon has specified the grounds. These are different tactical paths on different timelines.

On the question of whether to attempt mediation alone or with specialist input: the process is not legally inaccessible to a seller acting alone, but the preparation stage – building the factual and regulatory record – is where errors are hardest to catch in real time. A poorly framed mediation filing sets a ceiling on what the process can achieve. The mediation itself is a single shot; there is no appeal from an unsatisfactory mediated outcome back into the same process.

For broader context on how P2B, the DSA, and the DMA interact across Amazon's EU operations, our EU marketplace regulation complete guide for sellers covers the full regulatory architecture in one place. For sellers also dealing with CE marking-related delistings, why CE marking complaints and delistings happen – and how sellers respond sets out the specific compliance evidence chain required.

What to do next: a practical sequence

The window to act effectively is real. A suspension that sits unaddressed for several weeks becomes harder to reverse, not because the legal rights expire, but because the commercial record of the suspension grows – and mediators assess proportionality partly on actual harm, which accumulates.

The practical sequence is this. First, obtain and preserve the statement of reasons. If Amazon IT has not issued one, request it formally – P2B Article 4 requires it, and the failure to provide one is itself a procedural irregularity that goes into the record. Second, do not respond through standard Seller Central case channels before reviewing whether an internal complaint under the P2B system is the right vehicle. Third, if you have already filed a standard appeal and received a rejection, that rejection may still count as the internal complaint response – depending on how the complaint was framed and routed, which we can review.

If you have already attempted an internal complaint and been refused, or if the process has stalled without a substantive answer, the mediation path is open. Getting the mediation filing right at the first attempt is the most important single step in the whole sequence.

If your Amazon IT account is suspended or restricted under EU rules and the internal process has not produced a result, email info@tutamenlaw.com for a review of where the matter stands and what, specifically, is still open. We review the notice, the internal complaint record, and the statement of reasons before giving a view – so the assessment is grounded in the actual documents, not a generic read of the rules.

Related areas

• EU Marketplace Regulation – full regulatory architecture for Amazon EU sellers under P2B, DSA, and DMA
• EU Listing Takedown on Safety Grounds – step-by-step compliance response checklist for safety-based delistings
• CE Marking Complaints and Delistings – why CE marking issues trigger delistings and the evidence chain sellers need

Frequently asked questions about mediation under EU marketplace rules

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

The timeline depends on two phases: the internal complaint and the external mediation process itself. An internal complaint that receives a substantive response within a few weeks is moving well. External mediation, once triggered, typically runs over several weeks to a few months depending on how quickly Amazon engages and how complex the dispute is. Neither phase has a fixed statutory deadline on the seller's side, but delay in invoking each step practically weakens the record. Acting promptly after receiving the statement of reasons – ideally within days, not weeks – keeps the timeline as short as the process allows. In matters we handle, sellers who came to us early in the process reached a mediation filing stage materially faster than those who had already spent months in unproductive standard appeal cycles.

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

The principal risk is a poorly framed internal complaint that does not exhaust the P2B prerequisite properly – leaving the mediation right technically open but the record too thin to use it effectively. A second risk is submitting the mediation filing on grounds that are broader than those stated in the statement of reasons, which invites Amazon to narrow the scope and limits what the mediator can usefully address. A third risk is missing the proportionality argument entirely. DSA proportionality is one of the most effective tools available to EU sellers, and it requires a developed argument that links Amazon's account-level action to the specific listing-level finding – a line of reasoning that is easy to omit when the seller is focused on simply "proving they didn't do it." These are correctable errors, but only before the mediation filing, not after.

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

There is no legal requirement to have legal representation in P2B external mediation. The process is designed to be accessible to business users without mandatory legal assistance. That said, the preparation stage – reviewing the statement of reasons, mapping compliance documents to the stated grounds, and building the proportionality argument – benefits substantially from someone who has handled the same sequence before. A mediator cannot develop the seller's case; the filing is the seller's one structured opportunity to present the regulatory and factual record. Sellers handling complex suspensions, multi-ASIN account-level measures, or matters involving product safety regulation on Amazon IT are the cases where specialist input most consistently changes the quality of the filing, and therefore what the mediation can realistically achieve.

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. Work on EU matters is handled by qualified lawyers with direct experience of P2B and DSA complaints across Amazon's EU surfaces; every engagement is treated as strictly confidential from the first contact. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

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.