Resolving mediation under EU marketplace rules: an anonymized account

TL;DREU marketplace rules give Amazon sellers on platforms like Amazon IT a procedural path to challenge a suspension or listing action that most sellers do not know exists. The Platform-to-Business Regulation, the Digital Services Act, and related instruments create enforceable rights – including access to mediation – that sit alongside, and sometimes override, the standard appeal process in Seller Central. What those rights mean in practice, how the path actually runs, and where the critical decision points sit is what this account sets out to explain.

This page walks through an anonymized matter handled by Tutamen: an Amazon IT seller whose account faced a suspension under EU marketplace rules, who believed the situation was final, and who ultimately used the mediation mechanisms available under those rules to reach a workable resolution. The situation is simplified and stripped of identifying detail. The procedural logic, the decision points, and the lessons apply broadly to sellers facing similar actions on Amazon's EU surfaces.

What was the situation, and why did it look unsolvable?

When a platform takes action under EU rules, the immediate experience for the seller is not very different from an ordinary suspension: listings disappear, disbursements stop, and a notice arrives in Seller Central or by email. The difference – and it is a significant one – is that the legal basis for the action is different, the procedural rights are different, and the correct response is therefore different.

The seller in this matter ran a mid-market operation on Amazon IT, supplying household goods across several product categories. In fall 2025, Amazon sent a notice citing product-safety concerns under rules consistent with the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) and referencing obligations under the Digital Services Act. Several top-selling ASINs were taken down. The account moved to a restricted status, with disbursements suspended pending further review.

The seller's first instinct – entirely understandable – was to treat this like a standard performance suspension and file a Plan of Action through Seller Central. That appeal was rejected. A second appeal was rejected faster than the first. By the time the seller came to us, the prevailing view inside their team was that the suspension was effectively permanent, that EU rules gave Amazon unlimited authority to act, and that the only realistic option was to open a new account on a different entity. That view, though common, was wrong.

A suspension under EU marketplace rules looks final. The appeal path is unclear. But the rules that authorize the platform to act also constrain how it acts and what remedies the seller can access. That is the starting point for any strategy worth running.

What was really happening: the regulatory and contractual structure

Understanding the actual legal basis for an EU marketplace action is not a formality – it decides what levers are available. In matters we handle involving Amazon IT and other EU surfaces, the first task is always to identify which instrument underlies the action and what procedural obligations it places on the platform.

The Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation – formally Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 – establishes baseline rights for business sellers on online platforms operating in the EU. Among the most important: the obligation on the platform to give a statement of reasons for any restriction, suspension, or termination. That statement of reasons is not just an administrative nicety. It is the document that determines whether the platform has complied with its own legal obligations, and it is the starting point for any challenge.

The P2B Regulation also requires Amazon, as a platform covered by the regulation, to provide access to an internal complaint-handling system and – critically – to identify at least two external mediators that business sellers can use. This is the mediation mechanism that most sellers do not know exists, and that most standard Amazon appeal guides do not mention. It is separate from the Seller Central appeal process. It operates under different rules. And it gives the seller a procedural right that cannot simply be declined by the platform.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), under which Amazon operates as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), adds a further layer. The DSA requires platforms to maintain a robust internal complaint mechanism and imposes obligations around transparency and non-arbitrary enforcement. Where an action is taken on safety grounds, the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) governs the substantive standard. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is relevant where the concern involves gatekeeper conduct affecting market access more broadly.

In this matter, the notices received by the seller cited GPSR compliance. The statement of reasons Amazon provided was thin – it identified the product categories and cited safety obligations, but did not specify which declarations of conformity were deficient or which test reports were lacking. That thinness was itself a procedural vulnerability, and it shaped the strategy.

The strategy: building the case before engaging the mediation path

The correct move at this stage was not to file another appeal into Seller Central. The internal complaint-handling system under P2B is a distinct channel. Using it correctly requires a different document from a Plan of Action, and the framing matters considerably.

We began by requesting a complete and specific statement of reasons through the appropriate channel, citing the P2B Regulation's requirements directly. The response Amazon provided in answer to that request was more detailed than the original notice, identifying two specific product lines and citing missing or outdated EU declarations of conformity (EU DoC) and inadequate labeling for GPSR purposes.

That specificity, obtained through the regulatory complaint path rather than the standard appeal path, was the turning point. With the actual basis for the action identified, the seller could take concrete remedial steps: updating DoCs with the relevant notified body, correcting labeling to meet GPSR requirements, and obtaining updated test reports from an accredited EU laboratory. Those steps took several weeks. The evidence package assembled at the end of that process was substantive and specific – not a general statement of intent, but documentation tied directly to each cited deficiency.

We then prepared a formal complaint through Amazon's internal complaint-handling system, referencing the P2B Regulation's requirements, presenting the remediation evidence, and requesting reinstatement of the affected listings. The complaint also noted that mediation under P2B remained available to the seller if the internal process did not produce a reasoned resolution. That reference is not a threat. It is a statement of the regulatory reality, and it changes the weight the platform assigns to its response.

In matters we handle at this stage, we regularly see a meaningful difference in the quality and speed of platform responses when the P2B framework is engaged correctly, compared with the standard Seller Central appeal loop. That difference reflects the platform's own compliance obligations, not any particular leverage in the legal relationship.

The mediation path: what it is and how the decision to use it is made

Mediation under EU marketplace rules is not the same as commercial mediation in a contract dispute. Under the P2B Regulation, the platform must identify at least two mediators in its terms. The seller can request mediation with one of those mediators if the internal complaint process has not produced a resolution. The mediator's role is to help the parties reach an agreement – the mediator does not impose a decision. But the process itself imposes obligations: the platform must engage in good faith, and the costs of mediation are to be borne predominantly by the platform.

The decision to invoke mediation rather than continue in the internal complaint system is a genuine strategic choice. In this matter, we assessed three factors before recommending mediation as the next step. First, the internal complaint had produced a response, but that response did not restore the listings and did not engage with the remediation evidence in any substantive way. Second, the seller's commercial situation was deteriorating: the affected ASINs represented the majority of revenue on the IT surface, and the suspended disbursements were creating real cash-flow pressure. Third, the documentation package was strong – a weak evidentiary position makes mediation a poor bet, because the mediator cannot manufacture a resolution from inadequate materials.

All three factors pointed toward invoking mediation. The formal request was filed with one of the mediators identified in Amazon's P2B terms. The request set out the regulatory basis, summarized the complaint history, and attached the remediation evidence package in full.

The mediation process ran over several weeks. The mediator facilitated a structured exchange of positions. Amazon's position moved during that exchange – not dramatically, but in a measurable direction. The outcome, in qualitative terms, was the reinstatement of the majority of the affected listings and a structured process for the remaining ones, tied to specific compliance milestones rather than an indefinite suspension. Disbursements resumed in the same window.

We do not state that outcome as a guarantee of what mediation will produce in any other matter. It reflects the specific facts, the strength of the remediation evidence, and the procedural path that was followed. What it demonstrates is that the mediation mechanism is a real process with real effects – not a theoretical right that the platform can simply ignore.

The seller's decision points and trade-offs

Any seller facing an EU marketplace suspension encounters several decision points that are genuinely consequential. This section states them directly, because the myth that EU sellers have no leverage once a platform suspends them persists partly because sellers do not know that these choices exist.

Decision point one: which channel to use first. The Seller Central appeal process and the P2B internal complaint process are not the same channel. Filing into Seller Central first is not wrong, but exhausting multiple Seller Central appeals before shifting to the P2B path costs time and can narrow the factual record available for the regulatory complaint. In this matter, the seller had already used two Seller Central appeals before we were instructed. That history was not fatal, but it meant the first task was to reset the framing before engaging the regulatory path.

Decision point two: whether to request a full statement of reasons. The P2B Regulation's obligation to provide a statement of reasons is not always satisfied by the initial notice. Requesting a more complete statement through the regulatory channel is often the fastest way to identify the actual basis for the action. Sellers who skip this step and go straight to building a remediation response often address the wrong problem.

Decision point three: when to invoke mediation. Mediation is most effective when the internal complaint process has genuinely stalled, when the evidentiary package is complete, and when the commercial cost of continued suspension justifies the time the process takes. Invoking mediation too early – before the remediation evidence is strong – risks a process that concludes without a workable resolution. Invoking it too late can mean months of unnecessary suspension.

Decision point four: what happens if mediation does not produce agreement. The realistic options at that stage include escalation to EU authorities responsible for enforcing the P2B Regulation and the DSA, and, in some cases, judicial proceedings in the relevant EU member state. Those paths are slower and more expensive. In our experience, the existence of those paths – and the platform's awareness that they are available – is itself a factor in the mediation dynamic. But they are not a guarantee of a better outcome, and the decision to pursue them requires a sober assessment of the specific matter.

For sellers at this crossroads, our guide to EU marketplace regulation for sellers explains the full regulatory architecture and how the P2B, DSA, and GPSR interact in practice.

If the suspension involves a product-safety or CE marking angle, the analysis in CE marking complaints and delisting: the seller's real options addresses the specific documentary requirements and how to build the compliance case.

The question of whether a listing takedown on safety grounds signals a wider account risk is addressed in EU listing takedowns on safety grounds: is your account at risk?

If a first attempt has already failed: a second read

If you have already filed an appeal through Seller Central and been rejected – or if an internal complaint has produced an unsatisfactory response – the situation is not closed. In matters we handle, a second review of the account history, the notices, and the prior filings regularly identifies the specific reason the first attempt failed. That reason is often correctable.

The myth that EU sellers have no leverage once a platform acts is exactly that: a myth. The P2B Regulation, the DSA, and the GPSR together create a set of procedural and substantive constraints on platform conduct. Those constraints are enforceable. The seller who understands them is in a materially different position from the one who treats a suspension notice as a final decision.

If a prior attempt came back rejected, a fresh review can identify what shifted – and whether the mediation path or the internal complaint path offers the better next step. To discuss where the matter stands, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

The lesson for other EU marketplace sellers

This matter illustrates several points that apply broadly to sellers facing action under EU marketplace rules.

First, the regulatory architecture governing EU marketplace platforms is substantively different from the contractual framework of the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement alone. The P2B Regulation and the DSA impose obligations that give sellers procedural rights independent of what the platform's own terms say. Those rights include the right to a statement of reasons, the right to an internal complaint-handling process, and the right to access mediation. Sellers who treat an EU suspension as equivalent to a US account suspension – and respond accordingly – miss the regulatory layer entirely.

Second, the quality of the evidentiary package matters more in this context than in a standard Plan of Action. A POA for a US performance suspension asks the seller to explain what went wrong and what will change. A P2B internal complaint asks the seller to demonstrate, with documentation, that the basis for the platform's action has been addressed or was erroneous. The standard is higher, and the documents required are different.

Third, mediation under the P2B Regulation is a real mechanism with a real procedural structure. It is not the same as informal negotiation, and it is not a theoretical option that the platform can decline to engage with. In matters where the internal complaint process stalls, it is often the fastest path to a resolution that the platform will actually implement.

Fourth, the timeline matters. EU marketplace suspensions that drag on for months cause compounding damage: inventory sits idle, disbursements accumulate as reserves, and the seller's position on the relevant surface deteriorates. Moving to the correct procedural path quickly – rather than cycling through Seller Central appeals that are not designed for this type of action – is itself a material factor in the outcome.

A second matter illustrates the same principles from a different angle. A software accessories seller on Amazon DE (spring 2026) received a restriction notice referencing DSA obligations and a DMA gatekeeper concern around search ranking visibility. The initial Seller Central appeals produced only automated responses. We reviewed the regulatory basis of the action, identified that the statement of reasons was materially deficient under P2B requirements, and filed a formal demand for a complete statement through the internal complaint channel, citing both the P2B Regulation and the DSA's transparency requirements. Amazon provided a substantially more detailed response within the week. That response identified a specific algorithm-related restriction tied to a policy change on the DE surface. With the actual basis of the restriction identified, the seller was able to engage the internal complaint process on the correct factual and regulatory footing. The restriction was lifted within the complaint process, without the matter reaching formal mediation – which is, in its own way, the best possible outcome.

Related areas

• EU Marketplace Regulation – full regulatory architecture for Amazon EU sellers
• EU Account Suspension and Reinstatement – procedural paths and appeal options on EU surfaces

Frequently asked questions about resolving mediation under EU marketplace rules

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

The timeline varies depending on how quickly the platform engages and how complete the evidentiary package is going in. The internal complaint process is generally the faster path. Where mediation itself is invoked, the process typically runs over several weeks from the formal request to a concluded outcome. The P2B Regulation's structure is designed to move faster than commercial arbitration, but it is not a rapid process. The seller's preparation – having a complete documentary record before invoking mediation – is the single biggest factor in keeping the timeline manageable. In matters we handle, incomplete documentation at the outset is the most common cause of delay.

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

The procedural risks are significant. The P2B Regulation and the DSA create enforceable rights, but they have to be invoked correctly – through the right channels, with the right regulatory framing, and supported by the right documentation. A seller who files a P2B complaint without identifying the specific regulatory obligation the platform has breached, or without the documentation needed to demonstrate remediation, is unlikely to move the platform. There is also a timing risk: invoking mediation before the evidentiary package is strong can close off the process without a resolution, and returning to it is procedurally awkward. The DSA seller rights and the P2B regulation framework are specific – and misapplying them is a real hazard for sellers working without counsel experienced in EU marketplace disputes.

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

You are not legally required to have legal representation in the P2B mediation process. However, the process is more technical than a standard Seller Central appeal, and the regulatory framing – identifying which obligation the platform has breached, constructing the complaint correctly, and assembling the documentary record – requires familiarity with the P2B Regulation, the DSA, and, where product safety is in play, the GPSR. In matters we handle, sellers who have tried to run the internal complaint and mediation process without assistance typically come to us after a stalled process or a rejected complaint. At that point, the task is more complex because the procedural history has to be addressed as well as the substance. Starting with attorney-led guidance is generally faster and produces a stronger record. EU marketplace suspension and the dsa seller rights framework are specific areas of practice, not general Amazon seller advice.

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 after a short review. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. Our EU regulation practice covers P2B complaints, DSA internal-complaint processes, mediation, and engagement with national enforcement authorities. 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.

Written by Claire Donnelly – arbitration & disputes analyst, Tutamen.