Unfair ranking complaint under EU rules: your questions answered

An Amazon IT seller notices the drop first – organic visibility collapses, sponsored units no longer cover the gap, and revenue falls sharply within days. The cause is often buried in ranking logic the platform does not voluntarily explain. As enforcement of EU marketplace rules has tightened, sellers on Amazon's Italian storefront now have structured legal avenues to challenge ranking treatment they believe is unfair. The questions below answer what those avenues actually are, how the procedure works in practice, and where the real decision points sit.

TL;DRAn unfair ranking complaint under EU rules is a formal challenge to the way a marketplace platform – such as Amazon IT – orders or suppresses a seller's listings, using rights created by the Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation and, where Amazon acts as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), the Digital Services Act (DSA). The P2B Regulation requires Amazon to explain the main parameters governing ranking, and to operate an accessible internal complaint-handling system for sellers who believe those parameters have been applied unfairly. A well-structured complaint can force a reasoned response, create a documented record, and – if needed – support regulatory escalation or litigation.

This page works through the questions we hear most often from Amazon IT sellers facing this situation: what the rules actually require, how to build the procedural record, what the realistic timelines look like, and when professional help changes the outcome.

What does "unfair ranking" actually mean under EU marketplace rules?

Unfair ranking, under EU law, means that a marketplace has ordered or de-prioritised a seller's listings in a way that is inconsistent with its own disclosed ranking parameters, or in a way that discriminates without a legitimate reason – particularly where the platform's own products or preferred partners benefit. The P2B Regulation requires online intermediation services operating in the EU to disclose the main parameters they use to determine ranking and the relative importance of those parameters. Amazon IT is subject to that obligation. Where a seller's position in search results or category pages falls sharply – or where a listing is suppressed, demoted, or excluded from a Buy Box calculation – without a policy-compliant explanation, that gap between disclosed rules and actual treatment is the core of an unfair ranking complaint.

The Digital Services Act adds a second layer. Amazon has been designated a Very Large Online Platform under the DSA. That designation brings with it obligations around transparency of recommender systems – the algorithmic systems that determine what is shown to consumers and in what order. A DSA-based complaint focuses on whether the platform's recommender logic is being applied consistently and whether the seller has been given a comprehensible statement of reasons when the system treats their content differently. In matters we handle, the two instruments work together: P2B creates the internal complaint right; the DSA supplies the transparency obligation that makes the internal complaint worth pursuing.

It is also worth understanding what an unfair ranking complaint is not. It is not a copyright or trademark dispute. It is not an account health issue in the conventional sense. And it is not simply a commercial grievance about a competitor outperforming you organically. The complaint has legal teeth only where the platform's own disclosed rules, or its obligations under the P2B Regulation and DSA, are not being honoured.

Which EU rules apply to Amazon IT specifically?

Amazon IT is bound by the P2B Regulation as an online intermediation service operating in the EU, making it one of the clearest areas where sellers have enforceable procedural rights. The Regulation applies to sellers who have their place of establishment or residence in the EU and who offer goods or services to consumers located in the EU through the platform. Most professional Amazon IT sellers fall squarely within that scope.

The P2B Regulation's ranking provisions require Amazon to set out, in its terms and conditions, the main parameters determining ranking and the reasons for the relative importance of those parameters compared to other parameters. Where Amazon gives preferential treatment to its own products or to products sold by sellers with whom it has particular commercial relationships, it must describe those arrangements and their effects on ranking. If the disclosed parameters do not match what the seller observes, or if the terms and conditions do not contain a meaningful description at all, a complaint has a concrete basis.

The DSA adds obligations around the statement of reasons. When a platform restricts, demotes, or removes content – including a seller's listing or its ranking position – the DSA requires that a statement of reasons be provided to the affected commercial user. That statement must identify the specific content concerned, the legal or policy basis for the restriction, and whether automated tools were used in making the decision. For Amazon IT sellers, this means that a sudden ranking drop linked to a platform decision – rather than a purely organic algorithmic shift – should come with an explanation. Where it does not, the seller has grounds to demand one through the internal complaint-handling system.

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is relevant where self-preferencing is part of the picture. Amazon has been designated a gatekeeper under the DMA, which prohibits gatekeepers from treating their own products or services more favourably in ranking than similar products or services offered by third parties. If a seller's ranking drop coincides with increased visibility of Amazon's own brand or sponsored products in the same category, the DMA angle is worth examining. We regularly see matters where a P2B complaint and a DMA-based regulatory referral are the appropriate parallel tracks.

How does the internal complaint-handling system work on Amazon IT?

The P2B Regulation requires Amazon to operate an internal complaint-handling system that is free of charge and easily accessible for sellers. That system must process complaints relating to, among other things, a failure to comply with the Regulation's transparency obligations and the way Amazon has applied its ranking parameters to a specific seller. Amazon IT is required to handle complaints within a reasonable time and to respond in a way that is individual, not templated.

In practice, the internal complaint process begins with a formal written complaint lodged through the channels Amazon designates for this purpose. The complaint must be specific: it should identify the listing or listings affected, the time period during which the change in ranking was observed, the discrepancy between the disclosed ranking parameters and the treatment actually received, and the legal basis under the P2B Regulation or DSA. A vague complaint – "my ranking dropped and I think it is unfair" – will not receive a meaningful response and will not build the procedural record needed for further steps.

The complaint must document the baseline. That means capturing ranking data, search result position, Buy Box win rate, impressions, and any platform communications received around the time of the change. In matters we work on, sellers who arrive with this data already assembled move faster and produce stronger complaints. Those who arrive without it face a reconstruction exercise that takes time the complaint timeline does not always have.

What happens after the complaint is filed? Amazon is required to respond with individual consideration. If the response is templated or non-substantive, that response itself becomes part of the record for any escalation to a mediator or regulatory authority. If the response acknowledges an error and corrects it, the matter may be resolved at that stage. If the response disputes the complaint on the merits, the seller must decide whether to accept that outcome, escalate to mediation, or pursue a regulatory route. That decision point is where legal advice has the most impact.

What is the realistic procedural path after filing an internal complaint?

The procedural sequence under EU rules is more structured than many sellers realise. The internal complaint is the mandatory first step. It is not optional and it is not merely a formality. Filing a documented, well-grounded complaint within the platform's system serves two purposes: it creates the record needed for further steps, and it gives Amazon the opportunity to correct the error without further escalation. For Amazon IT sellers, that opportunity matters commercially – the fastest possible resolution of a ranking issue is almost always preferable to months of regulatory or legal process.

If the internal complaint does not resolve the matter, the P2B Regulation requires Amazon to engage with independent mediation. Amazon is required to identify at least two mediators willing to work with sellers and to cooperate in good faith with any mediation process initiated by a seller. Mediation under the P2B framework is different from commercial arbitration: it is specifically designed for the platform-seller relationship, and the mediator must meet standards of expertise in online intermediation and in the general principles of EU law. The costs of mediation are shared between platform and seller, with Amazon bearing the majority in many configurations – though the precise arrangement depends on the mediator and the matter.

Alongside or after mediation, a seller may lodge a complaint with the relevant national competent authority or with the European Commission. The P2B Regulation empowers representative organisations and public bodies to bring enforcement actions. Individual seller complaints to national authorities can trigger supervisory attention, particularly where patterns of non-compliance are evident. For Amazon IT, the relevant Italian supervisory authority and the Commission's Digital Markets Unit are both channels that a well-documented complaint can reach.

Where the DMA is engaged – particularly where self-preferencing is alleged – the European Commission has direct enforcement jurisdiction and has shown willingness to act against designated gatekeepers. A complaint to the Commission under the DMA is a distinct track from the P2B internal complaint path, and the two can run in parallel. For a detailed guide to that process, our page on the self-preferencing complaint under the DMA sets out the step-by-step approach.

The seller's decision at each stage – internal complaint, mediation, regulatory referral, or litigation – turns on the strength of the evidence, the commercial cost of the ranking loss, and the realistic outcome of each path. That is not a one-size answer. It is a trade-off analysis.

What are the seller's real decision points and trade-offs?

The first decision point is documentation. A seller who observes a ranking change has a limited window in which the most useful data is still capturable. Search ranking positions, Buy Box data, impressions, and conversion rates from the period before and after the change are the foundation of any viable complaint. Waiting several weeks to begin documentation creates gaps that are difficult to fill later. The decision to act quickly on data preservation is the one that most determines whether the complaint is viable at all.

The second decision point is scope. A seller must choose whether to pursue the complaint solely on P2B transparency grounds – which requires showing that the disclosed ranking parameters were not followed – or to engage the DSA statement-of-reasons obligation, or to include a DMA self-preferencing angle. These are not mutually exclusive, but each requires different evidence and a different framing. A complaint that mixes all three without discipline tends to be less effective than a focused complaint on the strongest ground. In matters we handle, the scoping exercise at the start is often where the most consequential choices are made.

The third decision point is escalation. If the internal complaint receives a templated or non-substantive response, the seller faces a choice between mediation, regulatory referral, or accepting the outcome. Mediation is quicker and more commercially confidential than regulatory proceedings. A regulatory referral to a national authority or the Commission is slower but can have broader effect – particularly where the seller is willing to have their case form part of a larger enforcement picture. Litigation in Italian courts is also available, though it is typically the longest and most expensive route, and is most appropriate where the seller can demonstrate concrete, quantifiable harm.

The fourth decision point is timing relative to any ongoing Amazon IT account issues. A ranking complaint that runs alongside an active account-health matter, a product-compliance question, or an IP dispute requires careful sequencing. Filing a ranking complaint while other account issues are unresolved can complicate both tracks. That is a sequencing question that the relevant regulatory and commercial context determines – and it is one reason sellers in this position benefit from looking at the full picture before filing. Our analysis of EU marketplace regulation covers the wider regulatory picture for sellers operating across EU storefronts.

A home-decor seller operating on Amazon IT came to us in early 2026 after observing that their principal category listings had dropped from the first page of search results to beyond the third page across a two-week period, with no policy notice, no account health alert, and no communication from Amazon. We reviewed the account data, compared the timing against Amazon IT's disclosed ranking parameters, and identified a discrepancy between the stated role of seller performance metrics and the actual treatment the account had received. We filed a structured internal complaint under the P2B Regulation, citing the specific ranking parameters at issue and the gap in the statement of reasons. Amazon provided a more substantive response within the internal complaint period, acknowledged a configuration issue, and the listing positions recovered over the following weeks. No mediation was needed. The case illustrates why documentation speed and complaint precision matter more than complaint volume.

What about the seller who has already tried and received a non-answer? If a first internal complaint came back with a templated response or a standard policy paragraph that did not address the specific ranking parameters at issue, the complaint record is still usable. A second, more precisely targeted complaint – or an immediate escalation to mediation – is often the right next move. The fact that the first filing was rejected or ignored does not close the procedural path. It narrows it, and it makes the next step harder to get right without a careful read of what was returned and why it failed.

To discuss the specifics of your Amazon IT ranking situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com for a review. Fixed fees are quoted up front after a short assessment of the matter.

How does an unfair ranking complaint differ from an account suspension appeal?

An account suspension appeal is a response to a deactivation or restriction imposed under Amazon's own policies – typically citing a performance standard breach, a policy violation, or an identity-verification failure. The appeal process for suspensions is internal to Amazon, governed by the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement, and follows Amazon's own procedural rules. A Plan of Action (POA) is the standard instrument: root cause, corrective action, preventive measures.

An unfair ranking complaint is structurally different. The seller's account is typically still active. The listings are live. But their position in search results, category pages, or Buy Box competitions has been suppressed or deprioritised in a way the seller believes is inconsistent with the platform's disclosed rules or EU legal obligations. The complaint is not addressed to Amazon's Seller Central appeals team in the same way a suspension POA would be. It is addressed to Amazon's P2B complaint-handling mechanism, which operates under a distinct legal framework.

The practical difference matters because the evidence required is different, the response timeline is different, and the escalation path is different. A suspension appeal that fails can be refiled or escalated through Seller Central's internal hierarchy, or – where the BSA arbitration path applies – through the dispute-resolution mechanism in the Business Solutions Agreement. A ranking complaint that fails at the internal stage goes to P2B mediation or regulatory referral, not to BSA arbitration. Conflating the two paths is a common error. It leads sellers to file a ranking complaint as if it were a performance appeal, and to receive a response from the wrong Amazon team that addresses the wrong question.

For sellers who are dealing with both a ranking suppression and an account-level matter simultaneously, the sequencing of these two parallel processes is critical. We work through the account picture first, then determine the right filing order for each track.

For sellers whose situation involves a suspension on a German storefront alongside a ranking issue, our page on German marketplace suspensions addresses the suspension-specific procedural questions in that jurisdiction.

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving unfair ranking complaint under EU rules usually take on Amazon IT?

Resolution timelines vary significantly by the path taken and the strength of the initial complaint. An internal complaint that is well-documented and precisely framed can receive a substantive Amazon response within the internal complaint window – often several weeks. Where mediation is needed, the process typically takes longer, measured in months rather than weeks, depending on mediator availability and the complexity of the evidence. Regulatory referrals to national authorities or the European Commission operate on their own timetables, which are generally longer still. In matters we handle, the fastest outcomes have consistently been those where the internal complaint was filed promptly, with complete data and a specific legal basis, giving Amazon a clear opportunity to correct the issue without the matter escalating.

What are the main risks if I handle unfair ranking complaint under eu rules alone?

The principal risks of handling this without professional help are three: filing on the wrong legal basis, filing without the evidence the complaint requires, and missing the procedural steps that preserve the right to escalate. A complaint that cites general unfairness without mapping that unfairness to the P2B Regulation's ranking-parameter disclosure requirements, or to the DSA's statement-of-reasons obligation, is unlikely to receive a substantive response. A complaint filed without contemporaneous ranking data is difficult to correct later. And a seller who skips the internal complaint stage and goes directly to a national authority may find the complaint inadmissible because the required internal process has not been exhausted. Each of these errors is recoverable in theory, but each narrows the available options and costs time during which the ranking loss continues.

Do I need a lawyer for unfair ranking complaint under eu rules?

Not every ranking complaint requires a lawyer from the outset. A seller with strong documentation, a clear understanding of P2B and DSA obligations, and the time to draft a precise, legally grounded complaint can file an effective internal complaint independently. The cases where professional involvement changes the outcome are those where the legal basis is contested, where Amazon's response is non-substantive and the seller needs to decide whether and how to escalate, where a DMA self-preferencing angle is in play, or where the commercial value of the ranking loss justifies the investment in a well-constructed case. In matters we work on at Tutamen, the most common pattern is sellers who attempted a first internal complaint alone, received a template response, and came to us to determine whether anything was still open. Usually, something is – but the window is narrower than it would have been.

Related areas

• EU Marketplace Regulation – advice for EU sellers on platform transparency, suspension, and regulatory compliance
• Self-preferencing complaint under the DMA – step-by-step guide to the DMA gatekeeper complaint 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 after a short review of the matter. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. Every matter is handled under attorney-client privilege, and our fee structure is fixed and disclosed before we begin. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Claire Donnelly – arbitration & disputes analyst, Tutamen

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.