Seller code of conduct violation: what it means for marketplace sellers

TL;DRA seller code of conduct violation on Amazon – including Amazon Italy – is a formal finding that an account has breached the behavioral standards built into the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement. It is not a performance issue. It is a policy determination, and the appeal path is different, more demanding, and less forgiving than a standard metrics-based deactivation. Sellers who treat it like a routine metrics appeal typically see a second rejection within days.

The account is down, the listings are dark, and the cash flow has stopped. That is where most sellers find themselves when they first read the phrase "seller code of conduct violation" in a deactivation notice from Amazon IT. The notice rarely explains what the account did wrong in specific terms. It states a conclusion. That gap – between the conclusion Amazon has reached and the evidence behind it – is where the real work begins.

This analysis covers what a seller code of conduct violation actually means on Amazon Italy, how the procedural path works, and what the realistic decision points look like for a seller trying to get back to trading.

What does "seller code of conduct violation" actually mean on Amazon IT?

A seller code of conduct violation is Amazon's catch-all policy finding for conduct it regards as incompatible with a trustworthy marketplace, distinct from the order-defect rate, late-shipment rate, or other performance metrics that trigger a different appeal track.

Amazon publishes a seller code of conduct in its Seller Central policies. It covers a cluster of prohibited behaviors: attempting to manipulate reviews or feedback, engaging in deceptive practices toward buyers or Amazon itself, operating multiple accounts without authorization, abusing buyer-seller messaging, misrepresenting a product or its condition, interfering with another seller's listings, and similar conduct. The list is broad by design. The wording is intentionally general, which means the same notice language can cover a range of underlying facts – from a single automated pricing tool that Amazon flagged as price manipulation, to a pattern of review solicitation emails, to a suspected related-account link.

On Amazon IT specifically, the notice arrives in Seller Central and is typically drafted in Italian, though the underlying policy standard is consistent with Amazon's global BSA. In matters we handle on the Italian marketplace, sellers often tell us the notice felt conclusory: it cited the violation category but gave no account-specific detail. That is not unusual. Amazon's enforcement automation is designed to detect patterns and flag accounts; it is not designed to produce a narrative explanation of what happened.

A key distinction for the appeal is whether the deactivation is classified as a performance deactivation or a policy deactivation. Seller code of conduct violations fall in the policy bucket. That matters because the Plan of Action for a policy deactivation must address a specific behavioral root cause – not metrics. A seller who submits a plan built around improving delivery times or order quality, when the real issue is alleged review manipulation or a linked-account flag, will almost certainly be rejected. We regularly see that mismatch as the single most common reason first appeals fail.

Why the Italian marketplace creates distinct procedural considerations

Selling on Amazon IT means operating under the same BSA as every other Amazon seller, but the enforcement touchpoints have local elements that affect how a reinstatement is pursued.

Amazon Italy operates under EU marketplace regulation. The Digital Services Act (DSA), which applies to Amazon as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), requires Amazon to provide a statement of reasons when it restricts a seller's account or listings. In practice, the statement of reasons is often the deactivation notice itself – but the DSA framework means a seller has a documented basis to demand that Amazon's explanation be specific enough to be actionable. It also means Amazon is obligated to maintain an internal complaint-handling system through which a restricted seller can escalate. These are not theoretical rights. They are procedural levers that a properly framed appeal can use.

The Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation, which applies across the EU, adds a further layer: sellers have a right to a statement of reasons before or at the time a restriction takes effect, and to an internal complaint mechanism that is accessible and effective. For sellers on Amazon IT who feel the deactivation notice was too vague to respond to meaningfully, these instruments are part of the picture.

None of that replaces the core task of a well-constructed Plan of Action. But it does mean that an Amazon IT seller facing a code of conduct violation is not entirely without procedural footing beyond simply submitting appeals and waiting. The dispute-resolution path depends on the BSA version that applies to the account, which we check first in any engagement.

For a broader view of how reinstatement works across different suspension types and marketplaces, our complete guide to reinstatement on online marketplaces walks through the full procedural landscape in detail.

What a Plan of Action for a code of conduct violation must actually contain

A Plan of Action is not an apology letter. It is a structured document that identifies the root cause of the policy violation with specificity, describes the corrective actions already taken, and explains the preventive measures that will stop the issue from recurring – all in a form that Amazon's review team can evaluate against the specific policy breach alleged.

That structure sounds straightforward. In practice, building it correctly for a code of conduct violation is harder than for a metrics-based deactivation, for a specific reason: the seller often does not know, with precision, what triggered the flag. The notice says "code of conduct violation." It may add a sub-category ("review manipulation," "multiple accounts," "deceptive practices") or it may not. The Plan of Action must nonetheless address the correct root cause – which means the first task is working backwards from the notice language, the account history, and any ancillary clues in Seller Central to identify what Amazon actually found.

A sincere apology and a promise to do better is not a Plan of Action. That is one of the most persistent myths in Amazon seller communities, and it is one of the most costly. Amazon's review process for policy-based deactivations evaluates whether the seller has demonstrated that they understand what the problem was and have taken concrete, verifiable steps to fix it. "I'm sorry, it won't happen again" gives the reviewer nothing concrete to evaluate. It reads as an account that has not done the work.

The three required components – root cause, corrective actions, preventive measures – each carry their own logic:

• Root cause must be specific and accurate. "We made a mistake" is not a root cause. "Our third-party repricing tool sent automated pricing adjustment messages through the buyer-seller messaging channel, which Amazon identified as an attempt to manipulate buyer decisions" is a root cause.
• Corrective actions must already have been taken by the time the Plan of Action is submitted. Future intentions are weak. Evidence of completed steps – the tool has been disconnected, the messaging template has been deleted, the team has been retrained – is what carries weight.
• Preventive measures must be durable and verifiable. A process change that can be described concretely ("we have set up a weekly compliance audit of all third-party integrations against Amazon's acceptable-use policies") is more credible than a vague commitment to be more careful.

In matters we work through involving Amazon IT, we frequently find that sellers have already submitted one or more appeals before contacting us. The most common failure pattern: the plan addressed a plausible root cause that was not the root cause Amazon actually identified. Correcting that requires going back to the notice, reconstructing the account's operational history, and rewriting the plan around the correct factual foundation.

How does a seller code of conduct violation differ from other deactivation types?

The enforcement automation on Amazon treats different violation types differently, and the distinction matters for how a seller approaches reinstatement.

A performance-based deactivation – triggered by order defect rate, late shipment rate, or valid tracking rate falling outside Amazon's thresholds – is resolved primarily by demonstrating corrective action on the specific metrics and explaining how the seller's operations have changed to prevent recurrence. The root cause is usually visible in the account data. The path, while stressful, is relatively legible.

An intellectual property complaint – a brand owner or rights holder filing a counterfeit, inauthentic, or used-sold-as-new complaint – requires the seller to address the specific complaint, provide supply chain documentation or a retraction, and in some cases engage directly with the rights owner. That is a different track again, one covered in depth in our analysis of abuse of sales rank and ranking manipulations.

A seller code of conduct violation sits in a third category. It is behavioral. Amazon is saying the account acted in a way that damaged the marketplace's integrity or another participant's interests – not that it performed poorly, and not (necessarily) that it infringed an IP right. The standard of review is different. The Amazon reviewer is evaluating conduct, intent, and the credibility of the seller's account of what happened. That is closer to a disciplinary determination than a metrics correction.

It also means that the seller's tone in the Plan of Action matters more than it does in a performance appeal. A metrics plan is evaluated almost entirely on the operational substance. A conduct plan is evaluated on the operational substance and on whether the seller's account of events is coherent and credible. A plan that is defensive, legalistic, or that implicitly contests Amazon's finding while purporting to address it will be read as non-cooperative.

Micro-case: linked-account flag on Amazon IT leading to code of conduct deactivation

A home-goods seller based in northern Italy came to us in winter 2025 after receiving a code of conduct deactivation on Amazon IT citing "operating multiple selling accounts." The seller was emphatic that they had only one account. The notice gave no further specifics.

What the account history revealed, on a careful read, was that the seller had previously operated a business as a sole trader and then incorporated, creating a new legal entity. During the transition, both accounts had briefly shared the same bank account details. Amazon's detection systems had flagged the shared financial identifier as a related-account link. The original account had been closed cleanly, but the flag persisted in the data Amazon was working from.

We reconstructed the corporate transition timeline, gathered the documentation evidencing the sole-trader closure, and drafted a root-cause Plan of Action that addressed the actual flag – the overlapping financial details during the transition period – rather than the general category of multiple accounts. The plan included the documentation as an exhibit and explained the preventive measure: the new entity's account uses bank details that were never associated with any prior Amazon account. The account was restored.

The lesson is not that documentation always resolves the matter. It is that the plan has to be about the actual thing Amazon found, not the seller's general understanding of the violation category. That requires identifying what the actual thing is, which is not always visible in the notice itself.

What are the realistic decision points and trade-offs for a seller?

When an Amazon IT account is deactivated for a seller code of conduct violation, a seller faces a sequence of decisions – and each one narrows or preserves what comes next.

First decision: appeal or not. The answer is almost always to appeal, but the timing and quality of that appeal matter. Submitting a weak first appeal quickly is worse than taking additional time to build a correct one. A rejected appeal is not just a delay; it signals to Amazon's system that the account has been reviewed and found wanting. Multiple weak appeals can cause Amazon to close the matter entirely without further review.

Second decision: what root cause to address. This is the analytical core of the process. If the deactivation notice specifies a sub-category (review manipulation, multiple accounts, deceptive conduct, etc.), that is the starting point. If it does not, the seller and their advisor need to reconstruct what in the account's operational history is most likely to have triggered the flag. That reconstruction draws on the account's order history, communications records, third-party tools in use, team structure, and any prior performance notifications.

Third decision: what to do if the first appeal is rejected. A rejection is not always final. If the first Plan of Action addressed the wrong root cause, a corrected plan that addresses the right one can succeed where the first failed. If the first plan addressed the correct root cause but was insufficiently evidenced, a second plan with stronger documentation may advance. What does not work is resubmitting the same plan with minor edits. Amazon's reviewers flag near-identical resubmissions.

Fourth decision: escalation paths. On Amazon IT, the DSA internal complaint mechanism is available as an escalation route if the standard appeal process produces no result. The P2B Regulation similarly provides a documented grievance path. The dispute-resolution mechanism in the BSA – the path to a Notice of Dispute and, potentially, to arbitration or mediation – depends on the BSA version that applies to the account, which we always verify before advising on that route. These are not standard first-response tools. They are options that become relevant when the standard appeal path is exhausted or stalled.

Fifth decision: timing relative to frozen funds. If the account holds a balance, the deactivation will typically trigger a reserve period before any disbursement. The seller needs to manage both the reinstatement and the funds track simultaneously. Letting the funds issue sit while focusing exclusively on reinstatement can cost additional time and, in some cases, additional claims against the balance.

The decision matrix in practice: if the notice cites review manipulation and the seller used a third-party review-request service, the route is a plan centered on that tool, its disconnection, and a documented process for compliant review management, on a timeline that depends heavily on the quality of the first submission. If instead the notice cites multiple accounts and the seller has had any business-structure change, the route is a full corporate history reconstruction supported by documentation, with a longer preparation phase but typically a cleaner path once the evidence is in order.

Common mistakes sellers make when handling a code of conduct violation alone

The most damaging mistakes are structural, not stylistic. They are the kind of mistakes that close off options rather than just delay the outcome.

Submitting a generic template is the most common. A large secondary market of Plan of Action templates exists online and through various seller communities. Some are better than others. All of them fail in the same way: they address a generic version of the violation rather than the specific facts of the account in question. Amazon's reviewers read hundreds of appeals. A plan that follows a known template, with minor substitutions, reads as a plan the seller did not write from their own account history.

Contesting the finding rather than addressing it is the second most common error. A seller who is confident they did not manipulate reviews may write a plan that essentially argues with Amazon's conclusion. That is not a Plan of Action; it is a rebuttal. Amazon's review process is not an adversarial proceeding at the appeal stage. The reviewer is looking for evidence of self-awareness and corrective action, not a defense brief. Sellers who feel strongly that the finding was wrong should nonetheless address the root cause on the assumption that the finding reflects something in the account data, even if the seller does not immediately see what it is.

Buyers' messaging violations are a related point. If a seller has also received warnings or restrictions on buyer-seller messaging – a pattern we see in some code of conduct cases – those need to be addressed in coordination, not separately. Our detailed analysis of how buyer-seller messaging violations are handled covers that dynamic in a cross-platform context that is instructive for Amazon cases as well.

Waiting too long to escalate. Some sellers spend several months resubmitting appeals before concluding that outside help is warranted. By that point, the account's appeal history may contain multiple near-identical submissions, Amazon may have marked the matter as reviewed and closed, and the funds reserve period may be nearing its outer limit. Earlier intervention typically preserves more options.

Micro-case: review-solicitation flag on Amazon US feeding into an Amazon IT deactivation

An apparel brand selling on both Amazon US and Amazon IT came to us in summer 2025 after receiving a code of conduct deactivation on the Italian marketplace. The specific allegation in the IT notice was "attempts to manipulate customer reviews." The seller had not run any review campaign on Amazon IT. What they had run, six months earlier, was an automated post-purchase email sequence on Amazon US that had been configured by a marketing agency without the seller's awareness that the solicitation language was non-compliant with Amazon's review policies.

Amazon's systems had linked the accounts and applied the conduct finding across both marketplaces. The Italian account had never had a direct review policy issue; it inherited the finding from the US enforcement action.

We mapped the cross-account enforcement chain, documented that the solicitation sequence had originated on the US account, been run by a third party without the seller's review of the specific language, and had been fully terminated. The corrective action addressed the contractual relationship with the agency and the internal sign-off process the brand now required before any third-party tool accessed its accounts. The Amazon IT account was restored after a single appeal. The Amazon US account followed a parallel track.

The lesson here is that code of conduct violations on one marketplace surface can carry across to linked accounts on a different marketplace. Understanding the account structure and the enforcement timeline is as important as understanding the Plan of Action format.

Related areas and next steps

Related areas

• Reinstatement – account deactivations across Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay, from POA drafting to escalation
• Complete guide to marketplace reinstatement – the full procedural map for sellers at any stage of a deactivation

If a first appeal or filing has already come back rejected, a second read of the account history and the appeal text can often identify the specific gap between what was submitted and what Amazon needed to see. That gap is almost always fixable if it is identified correctly.

At Tutamen, we review the deactivation notice, reconstruct the account timeline, identify the actual root cause Amazon flagged, and draft a Plan of Action built from the account's specific facts – not a template. For code of conduct cases on Amazon IT and other Amazon marketplaces, we work in coordination with the EU regulatory levers available under the DSA and P2B frameworks where those add procedural weight.

To discuss your account, email info@tutamenlaw.com. We quote a fixed fee after a short review of the notice and account history.

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving seller code of conduct violation usually take on Amazon IT?

Resolution timelines vary significantly depending on the complexity of the root cause, the quality of the first submission, and whether escalation steps are needed. A well-constructed Plan of Action that addresses the correct root cause on the first submission can produce a result within several weeks. Cases involving cross-account linkage, corporate structure issues, or prior rejected appeals typically take longer, as additional documentation and a corrected plan must be prepared before resubmission. There is no fixed Amazon timeline for reviewing conduct appeals; the process is manual and queue-dependent.

What are the main risks if I handle seller code of conduct violation alone?

The main risks are structural rather than stylistic. A Plan of Action that addresses the wrong root cause will be rejected, and repeated near-identical submissions can cause Amazon to treat the matter as closed without further review. Sellers also risk submitting appeals that are framed as rebuttals rather than corrective action plans, which reads as non-cooperative to Amazon's review team. A weak first appeal is not simply a delay; it narrows what options remain. On Amazon IT, the EU regulatory levers under the DSA and P2B Regulation also require a specific framing to be useful, which sellers not familiar with those instruments may not deploy correctly.

Do I need a lawyer for seller code of conduct violation?

Not every seller does. Some accounts are deactivated for a single, clearly identifiable conduct issue where the root cause is obvious and the corrective steps are straightforward. A seller in that position, who has not yet filed any appeal, may be able to construct an effective Plan of Action on their own. Where attorney-led work adds the most value is in cases where the root cause is not clear from the notice, where one or more appeals have already been rejected, where a cross-account or corporate-structure issue is involved, or where the account holds funds that need to be managed alongside the reinstatement. In matters we handle, a well-prepared plan typically costs less, and takes less time, than a series of rejected self-filed appeals.

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. Cases on Amazon IT and other EU marketplaces are handled with awareness of the DSA, P2B, and related instruments that apply to Very Large Online Platforms. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Written by James Whitlock, reinstatement and funds analyst, Tutamen. Published March 23, 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.