TL;DRA self-preferencing complaint under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a formal challenge to Amazon's practice of ranking or displaying its own products – or those of sellers it favors – ahead of third-party sellers competing on equal or better terms. On Amazon ES and other EU surfaces, Amazon operates as a designated gatekeeper under the DMA, which means that specific obligations on fair ranking now apply. Sellers who believe those obligations are being violated have procedural routes available at the European Commission and, in some cases, through national channels – routes that did not exist before the DMA came into force.

Self-preferencing complaint under the DMA: your questions answered

The complaint lands in your inbox, or the realization builds slowly: your listings on Amazon ES are buried. Amazon's own products, or a small group of preferred sellers, consistently appear above yours in search results – not because their listings are objectively better, but because Amazon controls the algorithm and benefits from the placement. You have heard the phrase "self-preferencing" in trade press. You have wondered whether the Digital Markets Act (DMA) actually gives you anything to work with.

It does. But the path is more involved than filing a web form and waiting for relief. This page answers the questions we most often hear from Amazon ES sellers who are weighing a DMA self-preferencing complaint or who have already started down that road and run into complications.

As EU marketplace rules have tightened, the procedural terrain for sellers has shifted materially. The DMA places binding obligations on designated gatekeepers. Amazon's position as a gatekeeper on Amazon ES is not in dispute. What is at issue, in any individual complaint, is whether the specific conduct complained of falls within the DMA's prohibition and whether there is enough evidence to support the filing. Those are the questions we work through first.

What is self-preferencing under the DMA, and does it apply to my situation on Amazon ES?

Self-preferencing is shortlisted conduct under the DMA: a gatekeeper is prohibited from treating its own services and products more favorably in ranking than comparable third-party offerings. On Amazon ES, that means Amazon cannot systematically rank its own private-label or sponsored inventory above third-party listings using criteria it does not apply equally to everyone. The prohibition covers both direct favoritism – Amazon's own brand appearing at the top of a relevant search – and indirect favoritism, where Amazon designs its ranking signals in a way that structurally disadvantages sellers who do not use its logistics, advertising, or fulfillment services.

Whether your situation fits the DMA's self-preferencing prohibition depends on a few specific questions. Is the conduct tied to Amazon's role as a gatekeeper service – specifically the Amazon marketplace as a core platform service? Does it involve ranking or display in a way that directly disadvantages third-party sellers? And can you identify the differential treatment with evidence, rather than inference? The DMA's language on self-preferencing is precise, and the European Commission – which enforces the DMA – will look for a clear connection between the conduct complained of and the specific gatekeeper obligation.

In matters we handle on Amazon ES, the fact pattern most often involves either organic search ranking suppression or "Buy Box" eligibility that appears conditioned on the seller using Amazon's own fulfillment or advertising products. Those patterns fit the statutory frame better than diffuse claims about visibility. If your situation involves an outright listing suspension or a delisting decision, the analysis overlaps with the Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation and, in serious cases, the Digital Services Act (DSA) – both of which provide distinct procedural paths. Our guide on EU marketplace regulation for sellers maps those intersections in more detail.

What is the DMA's formal enforcement mechanism, and who actually handles the complaint?

The DMA vests primary enforcement authority in the European Commission, not in national regulators. A seller filing a self-preferencing complaint is not filing with a Spanish agency; the complaint goes to or is considered by the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition. Third-party complaints – from sellers, trade associations, or other market participants – are a recognized input to Commission enforcement action. The Commission does not commit to investigating every individual complaint on a private-enforcement basis, but complaints from sellers form part of the evidentiary record that can trigger or deepen a formal investigation.

The distinction matters for expectation-setting. A DMA complaint by a single seller on Amazon ES will not, by itself, produce an injunction against Amazon next month. What it can do – especially when coordinated with complaints from other sellers in the same product category, or when it contributes to an investigation the Commission has already opened – is provide evidence of a systemic pattern and position the complaining seller as a recognized participant in the regulatory process. That participation has its own value: it creates a documented record and, in enforcement scenarios where the Commission imposes remedies on Amazon, sellers who have filed can be in a stronger position to benefit from behavioral commitments or structural remedies.

Parallel to the Commission route, the P2B Regulation gives sellers a right to a statement of reasons for ranking decisions and access to Amazon's internal complaint-handling system. We regularly see these tools used in combination: a seller uses the P2B ranking-disclosure request to obtain concrete evidence about how Amazon has ranked them, and that evidence then informs a more grounded DMA complaint narrative. The DMA and the P2B Regulation are not alternatives; they are layered instruments.

How do I build the evidence for a DMA self-preferencing complaint on Amazon ES?

Evidence is the hardest part. The Commission cannot act on assertions alone, and a complaint that reads as a general dissatisfaction with Amazon's search algorithm will not advance. What is needed is documentation that identifies the specific conduct, the affected listings or categories, the comparison between treatment of the seller's products and treatment of Amazon's own or preferred products, and the period over which the pattern occurred.

Practically, that means systematic capture of search result pages on Amazon ES over a defined period – screenshots, timestamps, and the exact search queries used. It means a comparison of the ranking or Buy Box eligibility of your listings against identifiably Amazon-affiliated or favored listings for equivalent products. It means checking whether Amazon's ranking methodology, as disclosed under the P2B Regulation, is consistent with what you are actually observing. And it means tying the rank suppression, where possible, to a specific trigger: a change in Amazon's algorithm, a new Amazon private-label entry in your category, or an apparent correlation between your refusal to use FBA and a drop in organic visibility.

One pattern we work through regularly: a seller on Amazon ES operating FBM (fulfilled by merchant) observes that a near-identical product fulfilled by Amazon (FBA or Amazon's own brand) systematically captures the Buy Box and the top organic position, even where the FBM seller's price, delivery time, and customer metrics are comparable. That differential treatment, documented over time and tied to the gatekeeper's own fulfillment advantage, maps onto the DMA's self-preferencing prohibition. Getting that documentation in a form usable for a Commission complaint is a discipline in itself.

Consider the experience of a consumer-electronics accessories seller on Amazon ES in winter 2026. They came to us after noticing that their products – competitively priced and carrying strong review histories – had dropped to page two or three of search results following Amazon's expansion of a competing private-label range in their category. We worked through their Seller Central data, issued a P2B statement-of-reasons request for the ranking methodology, and used the disclosed criteria to identify specific inconsistencies. The evidence package informed a structured complaint submission to the Commission and a parallel internal complaint through Amazon's own dispute-handling channel under the DSA. Neither route delivered instant relief, but both created a documented record of the conduct and the seller's formal objection to it.

What are the realistic timelines and outcomes I should expect?

Timelines for DMA enforcement are long by the standards a seller would prefer. Commission investigations into gatekeeper conduct do not resolve in weeks; in complex cases, they run for months or years. A seller who files a self-preferencing complaint expecting a binding remedy against Amazon by the next quarter is working from an unrealistic baseline.

That said, the realistic outcomes are broader than "wait for the Commission to act." The DMA complaint may be one component of a strategy that also uses the P2B internal complaint to force Amazon to explain – and potentially revise – a specific ranking decision. The DSA's statement-of-reasons mechanism may, in parallel, require Amazon to explain any suspension or downranking decision that materially affects your access to users. Where a national competition authority has opened its own proceedings – the Bundeskartellamt in Germany, for instance, has been active in this space, and other EU national authorities may follow – coordinated evidence can support those proceedings as well. For sellers operating across multiple EU surfaces, the picture of a country-specific complaint is necessarily incomplete without understanding what is happening at the network level.

What changes the timeline in a seller's favor is evidence quality, the existence of a Commission investigation already in progress, and whether the conduct complained of is a clean fit with the DMA's specific prohibition rather than a borderline case. In matters we handle, we are direct about which cases have enough to meaningfully contribute to the Commission's record and which would benefit from a different route – such as the internal complaint path under the DSA, or a P2B enforcement referral in the relevant member state.

How does the DMA complaint interact with my rights under the P2B Regulation and DSA?

The P2B Regulation is the primary instrument that gives individual sellers on EU marketplaces specific procedural rights: the right to a statement of reasons for ranking decisions, access to Amazon's internal complaint-handling system, and in some cases a right to mediation. These rights are enforceable now, and they are not conditional on the Commission opening a DMA investigation. A seller who has been downranked or whose products have been suppressed can invoke P2B rights directly and get a written response from Amazon explaining the ranking criteria applied.

The DSA adds a further layer, particularly for sellers facing content or listing removal, account suspension, or other restrictions on access to the platform. Amazon, as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the DSA, must provide a statement of reasons for any such decision. That statement can be challenged through Amazon's internal complaint-handling system and, where internal routes are exhausted, through certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies or – for certain decisions affecting fundamental rights – through supervisory authorities.

The DMA, P2B Regulation, and DSA form a set of layered protections for sellers on EU platforms. They are not mutually exclusive; the strongest complaint narratives we work on draw on all three. The P2B disclosure generates the evidence; the DSA internal complaint forces a formal platform response; and the DMA complaint frames the systemic conduct for the Commission. Our resource on a seller's path through German marketplace suspension illustrates how these instruments interact in a concrete cross-border context, and our guidance on UK marketplace suspension after Brexit explains the divergences that apply once you step outside the EU framework.

One important clarification on a myth we encounter often: EU sellers are not without leverage once a platform takes action against them. The combination of DMA gatekeeper obligations, P2B procedural rights, and DSA transparency requirements gives sellers access to formal channels that did not exist before these instruments came into force. Using those channels effectively requires preparation and persistence, but they are real.

If you have already attempted to use Amazon's internal complaint process and received a response that seems pro forma or inconsistent with your evidence, that is not the end of the road. A second, more structured submission – one that engages directly with the statement of reasons provided and identifies its specific failures – often produces a different result. Email info@tutamenlaw.com for a review of where your internal complaint stands and what the next step realistically is.

What are the seller's key decision points before filing?

Before committing to a DMA complaint, a seller on Amazon ES should work through a short but serious set of decisions. Not every ranking concern is a DMA violation; not every situation benefits from a Commission-level complaint as the first move. The decision points are practical and legal.

First: is the conduct specifically self-preferencing, or is it a different kind of Amazon policy decision – an account suspension, a listing removal, an eligibility restriction? The route depends on the answer. Self-preferencing in the DMA sense is about ranking and display of comparable products; an account deactivation is a different instrument with different remedies.

Second: what evidence do you actually have, and is it sufficient to frame a complaint that goes beyond asserting a preference? If the evidence is thin, the better first step is a P2B statement-of-reasons request – which compels Amazon to disclose the ranking criteria it applied to your listings and creates the evidence base for a subsequent DMA filing.

Third: what is the commercial timeline? If your business is suffering material harm now – lost sales, inventory stuck in a suppressed listing – the DMA complaint is a medium-to-long-term instrument. The immediate relief, if any, is more likely to come from the internal complaint route or a direct commercial negotiation. The DMA complaint is the structural remedy; P2B and DSA tools are the faster-moving levers.

Fourth: are other sellers in your category experiencing the same pattern? A complaint that is backed by evidence from multiple sellers describing the same conduct is a materially stronger input to the Commission than an isolated filing. If you are aware of others in your situation, coordinating the evidentiary record – without sharing privileged information – can make the combined submission significantly more credible.

A decision matrix in plain terms: if Amazon is ranking its own private-label products above yours in organic search on Amazon ES and you have documented the differential over time, a DMA complaint is a live option to pursue alongside a P2B statement-of-reasons request. If Amazon has taken action against your account directly – delisting, suspension, fulfillment restriction – the primary tools are the DSA statement of reasons, Amazon's internal complaint-handling system, and, where applicable, national enforcement channels. If you are on the borderline, the right first step is a scoping review, not an immediate filing.

Related areas

• EU Marketplace Regulation – legal representation for EU and UK marketplace sellers on platform rule compliance and enforcement.
• EU Marketplace Regulation: Complete Guide for Sellers – the full landscape of DMA, DSA, and P2B rights and obligations for marketplace sellers.

If your Plan of Action filing or a first internal complaint has already come back rejected or with a response that does not engage your evidence, a second professional review of both the filing and Amazon's response can identify specifically what failed and whether a revised submission or an escalation is the right next step. Email info@tutamenlaw.com to discuss.

Frequently asked questions: self-preferencing complaint under the DMA

How long does resolving a self-preferencing complaint under the DMA usually take on Amazon ES?

Commission-level DMA enforcement runs on a regulatory timeline – investigations of complex gatekeeper conduct typically take months and can extend longer. An individual seller should not expect a binding Commission remedy within a short period. The faster-moving instruments are the P2B statement-of-reasons request and the DSA internal complaint, both of which require Amazon to respond on a defined basis. Those tools often produce a substantive platform response within weeks. In many matters, the combination of all three instruments – DMA complaint, P2B request, and DSA internal complaint – produces the best overall trajectory, with the faster tools addressing immediate harm while the DMA complaint builds the longer-term record.

What are the main risks if I handle a self-preferencing complaint under the DMA alone?

The most common risk is framing the complaint in terms that do not map to the DMA's specific prohibition. A filing that describes general dissatisfaction with Amazon's search algorithm, without tying it to specific gatekeeper obligations and documented differential treatment, is unlikely to advance at the Commission level. A second risk is failing to use the P2B Regulation to generate the evidence that the DMA complaint actually needs – many sellers file a DMA complaint first and discover only later that they lacked the documented ranking criteria that would have made the filing credible. A third risk is that a weak or premature DMA filing can color a subsequent, stronger filing; the Commission's internal record will show the prior submission.

Do I need a lawyer for a self-preferencing complaint under the DMA?

A lawyer is not a formal procedural requirement for filing a DMA complaint with the European Commission. But the practical answer is that the complaint's strength – and the likelihood it contributes meaningfully to the Commission's enforcement record – depends heavily on how it is framed, what evidence it carries, and whether it correctly identifies the applicable gatekeeper obligation. In matters we handle, attorney-led drafting of the complaint narrative and the parallel P2B and DSA submissions makes a material difference to the quality of what goes in. The DMA regime is new; the Commission's stated priorities shift; and the overlap between DMA, DSA, and P2B is not straightforward to work through without regulatory-practice experience. For a fixed fee quoted up front after a short review of your situation, a legal assessment of whether and how to file is a proportionate investment against the commercial cost of an ineffective filing.

Can a self-preferencing complaint be filed even if my account has not been suspended?

Yes. A DMA self-preferencing complaint does not require that your account has been suspended or formally restricted. The prohibition applies to ranking and display conduct that disadvantages third-party sellers relative to Amazon's own or preferred products, whether or not the seller's account is technically in good standing. Suppression of your listings in organic search results on Amazon ES – even while your account remains active – can form the basis of a DMA complaint if you can document the differential treatment. In practice, sellers in active but disadvantaged positions often have a cleaner DMA case than those facing account-level action, because the harm is directly traceable to ranking conduct rather than a policy enforcement decision.

What should I do right now if I think I have a self-preferencing case?

Start documenting immediately. Capture search result pages on Amazon ES for your key product categories, with timestamps and exact queries. Note the specific listings appearing above yours and their fulfillment or affiliation status. Issue a P2B statement-of-reasons request for Amazon's ranking methodology in your category. Preserve any communication from Amazon regarding changes to your listing visibility or Buy Box eligibility. Do not file a DMA complaint until you have reviewed the evidence against the specific gatekeeper obligations – a premature or thin filing is harder to supplement later. Once you have a preliminary evidence set, a short scoping review with a specialist will tell you which combination of DMA, P2B, and DSA tools fits your situation and in what sequence.

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. Our EU marketplace practice covers DMA, DSA, and P2B matters across Amazon ES, Amazon DE, Amazon FR, Amazon IT, Amazon UK, and other surfaces, advising in English and, where appropriate, with support in Russian. 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.

By Dmitri Aronov – Partner, EU Marketplace Regulation | March 10, 2027