Before you act on sealed complaint against online stores: a checklist

TL;DRA sealed complaint against online stores is a US federal court filing in which a plaintiff – typically a brand owner or their litigation firm – names a large group of marketplace sellers as defendants on a single IP complaint, keeps the case record sealed until a temporary restraining order (TRO) is entered, and obtains an asset-freeze order directed at Amazon, PayPal, and other platforms before any defendant is served. If your Amazon US account has been frozen or your listings deactivated without explanation, you may already be a named defendant. The steps you take in the first days after learning of the order determine how much of your position you can recover.

A seller checks their Seller Central dashboard and finds their account frozen, their listings deactivated, and their disbursements blocked. No suspension notice. No policy email. Just a locked balance and a marketplace that will not say why. In many of those situations, the real explanation is a US federal court order that was obtained without any advance notice to the seller – an ex parte temporary restraining order entered in a Schedule A case, freezing assets across every named defendant at once.

That scenario is now a routine part of marketplace enforcement in the United States. Hundreds of sellers are named on single complaints each year. Most of them learn about the case from the account freeze, not from the court. The window to act is short. A weak or misdirected first response narrows what is possible later – and, in some matters, an early mistake forecloses the strongest procedural arguments entirely.

This checklist breaks the process into phases. Each phase covers the concrete checks a seller or their counsel should run before moving to the next step. The checklist is designed for Amazon US sellers who have been – or suspect they have been – named as a defendant in a sealed Schedule A complaint.

Phase 1: Confirm What You Are Actually Dealing With

The first task is to establish whether an account freeze or deactivation is driven by a court order or by an ordinary Amazon policy action, because the two situations require completely different responses. An Amazon policy suspension is handled through Seller Central and the appeals process. A court-ordered freeze is a federal matter, and the wrong response to a court order can have legal consequences beyond the account.

• Check your registered Amazon seller email for any court notification, summons, or letter from a plaintiff's counsel. Service is often defective or delayed in Schedule A cases, but some sellers do receive email notice.
• Log in to Seller Central and review Account Health, any performance notifications, and the disbursement screen. A freeze with no accompanying policy notice is a strong indicator of a court order rather than an internal Amazon action.
• Search the PACER federal court database (pacer.gov) for your legal entity name, your store name, and any trade names your account operates under. Many Schedule A complaints are filed in the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of New York, or other districts with active plaintiff IP practices.
• Check for any email to your business address – or even a personal address associated with the account – from a law firm you do not recognize. Plaintiff's counsel sometimes sends informal notice before formal service.
• If you find a case number, obtain the docket. The complaint and TRO are often unsealed once the TRO has been served, though some courts maintain the seal longer. If the record is still sealed, your attorney can request access as a named defendant.

Why this phase matters: Responding through Seller Central to what is actually a federal court order will not unfreeze your account. Worse, certain responses – including some that feel instinctively correct, like contacting the brand owner directly – can create complications in the litigation. Confirm the nature of the action before you do anything else.

In matters we handle, the most common pattern is a seller who has been trading legitimately for months or years, suddenly hit by an ex parte order entered in a case they could not have known was being prepared. The sealed record is the mechanism that makes this possible: the plaintiff files under seal, gets the TRO without the defendants present, and the seal is maintained until service. By then, the freeze is already in place.

Phase 2: Understand the Structure of a Schedule A / SAD Scheme Case

A Schedule A case – sometimes called a SAD scheme case – is a procedural vehicle in which a single plaintiff sues a long list of defendants, identified only as "Schedule A" in the complaint until the list is filed under seal. The mechanism gives plaintiffs significant procedural advantages: a single filing fee covers all defendants, joinder rules are stretched to connect unrelated sellers, and the ex parte TRO application can freeze assets at every named platform before any defendant has had a chance to appear.

Understanding how the vehicle works is not academic. It directly shapes which defenses are available to you and in what order to deploy them.

• Joinder challenge: Many Schedule A complaints join sellers who have no connection to each other beyond being accused of selling allegedly infringing products. Courts in several districts have begun scrutinizing whether joinder of unrelated sellers in a single complaint is proper. If misjoinder applies to your situation, it is one of the earliest and most powerful arguments to raise.
• Personal jurisdiction: A court can only exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who has sufficient contacts with the forum state. If your business is incorporated elsewhere, has no physical presence in the district, and only sold through a national marketplace, personal jurisdiction may be challengeable.
• TRO dissolution or modification: Even after a TRO is entered, a named defendant can move to dissolve it, narrow its scope, or require the plaintiff to post an increased bond. These motions are time-sensitive. Courts typically schedule a hearing on the preliminary injunction within a defined window after the TRO is entered.
• The preliminary injunction hearing: If the TRO is allowed to convert to a preliminary injunction without a defense challenge, the freeze becomes harder to lift. The preliminary injunction phase is where evidentiary arguments about the merits of the IP claim – and the seller's authorization, sourcing, or prior use – become relevant.
• Default judgment risk: Sellers who do not appear in the case face default judgment. A default judgment in a trademark or copyright case typically carries statutory damages, and those damages can be substantial. Appearing – even to challenge jurisdiction or move to dissolve the TRO – is almost always better than non-appearance.

For a fuller explanation of how Schedule A cases move through the courts, see our complete guide to Schedule A TRO defense for sellers, which covers the full procedural arc from sealed filing to resolution.

Phase 3: Preserve Evidence and Assess Your Defense Position

Before any communication with the court, the plaintiff, or Amazon, gather and preserve the documents that will form the factual foundation of any defense. Courts expect defendants to be in a position to speak to the merits of the IP claim as early as the TRO dissolution hearing – which may be only days after you learn of the case.

• Pull your sourcing documentation. Invoices, supplier agreements, certificates of authenticity, and distributor authorizations are the primary evidence that your products were genuine. Organize them by ASIN or product line and make sure they are accessible.
• Preserve your sales records for the accused products: the period of sale, volume, and pricing. Courts consider the commercial context when assessing whether a TRO bond is proportionate and when evaluating damages exposure.
• Gather your trademark and copyright ownership records, if any. If you are the rights holder or a licensed user, that documentation changes the case fundamentally.
• Preserve all communications with your supplier. If a supplier provided false authenticity representations, that is relevant to both the merits and any potential contribution claim.
• Document the financial impact of the freeze. Record the balance frozen at Amazon, the inventory value tied up in FBA, the disbursement date that was missed, and the downstream costs (outstanding invoices, payroll, storage fees). This is relevant to the bond challenge and to any damages claim if the TRO was wrongly obtained.
• Do not delete listings, remove products from FBA, or alter any account data. Changes to the account state after the order was entered can create evidentiary complications.

A consumer-electronics FBA seller on Amazon US (winter 2025) came to us several days after their account was frozen, having spent those days trying to resolve the issue through Seller Central. When we obtained the docket, the TRO had already been entered and the preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled within the week. The seller had the sourcing documentation we needed – but had also deleted several listings before consulting counsel. That deletion, while well-intentioned, required an explanation to the court. The lesson: preserve everything first, act second.

Once you have the documents, assess the strength of your position honestly across three dimensions: (1) the merits of the IP claim – were your products genuine, authorized, or clearly not infringing? (2) the procedural vulnerabilities in the case – joinder, jurisdiction, notice adequacy, bond sufficiency; (3) your commercial exposure – what is the frozen balance, and what is the realistic range of statutory damages if the case goes to judgment?

Phase 4: Evaluate the Procedural Options and Decision Points

A named defendant in a Schedule A case has several available paths, and the right choice depends on the specific facts of the IP claim, the court's local rules, and the commercial stakes involved. This phase is where a seller makes the decisions that define the rest of the matter.

• Move to dissolve or modify the TRO. If the IP claim is weak, the products are genuine, or the bond is disproportionate to your frozen balance, a dissolution motion is often the first move. A successful motion releases the frozen funds and removes the injunction. Even a partial modification – reducing the freeze to the value of the accused products – materially changes the commercial calculus.
• Challenge personal jurisdiction. If the court lacks jurisdiction over you, a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds can terminate the case before the merits are ever reached. This is a threshold question to raise early; some courts disfavor jurisdiction challenges raised after substantive engagement.
• Challenge misjoinder. If the complaint improperly joins unrelated sellers, a motion to sever removes you from the group case and forces the plaintiff to pursue you (if at all) in a separate action – often at a cost that makes the plaintiff reconsider.
• Negotiate a settlement. Many Schedule A plaintiffs are willing to resolve with sellers who can demonstrate legitimate sourcing, agree to a consent order, or make a modest payment that covers the plaintiff's litigation costs. Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and is often the most commercially rational outcome for a seller with a defensible position but limited appetite for federal litigation. See our detailed analysis of settlement demands in Schedule A cases and what the options actually are.
• Appear and defend on the merits. If the IP claim is wrong on its face – your products are genuine, the trademark does not cover your product category, or you have a license – full merits defense may be the correct path. This is the longer and more expensive route, but it is sometimes the only one that produces a clean outcome.

The decision between these options is not primarily a legal one. It is a commercial judgment that weighs the frozen balance, the cost of litigation, the strength of your sourcing evidence, and the likely plaintiff behavior. Our analysis of fighting versus settling a Schedule A case sets out the decision framework in detail.

If a first motion or filing has already come back without the result you needed – a denied TRO dissolution, for example, or a rejected jurisdiction challenge – a fresh read of the docket often identifies specific grounds that were not fully developed in the first submission and what, if anything, is still open on reconsideration or at the preliminary injunction stage.

Decision matrix: If the TRO was entered on a genuinely weak IP claim with a disproportionate bond, the route is dissolution, with the freeze released before the preliminary injunction hearing. If personal jurisdiction is clearly lacking, file the jurisdictional motion first – before substantive engagement on the merits. If the products were sourced through an authorized channel and the documentation is clean, a merits defense is viable and may produce the cleanest outcome. If the frozen balance is modest relative to litigation cost and the plaintiff is a recurring Schedule A filer, a negotiated exit on commercially acceptable terms is often the fastest path back to trading.

Phase 5: Manage the Amazon Account in Parallel

A court-ordered freeze and an Amazon account deactivation run on separate tracks. The court proceeding must be addressed through counsel in the federal court. The Amazon account state is governed by the TRO's specific terms and by Amazon's own interpretation of what it is required to hold.

• Review the TRO order carefully for its specific terms. Not all TROs freeze all assets. Some are limited to the accused ASINs or to a defined dollar amount. If Amazon has frozen more than the order requires, that is worth raising with counsel and, if necessary, with the court.
• Do not attempt to open a new Amazon seller account. Creating a linked account while an existing account is under a court order creates serious legal risk – both in the litigation and in terms of Amazon policy.
• Contact Amazon's legal response team (through the formal channel, not through Seller Central support) only after consulting counsel. Amazon is a third-party custodian holding funds subject to the order; the right mechanism for releasing those funds is the court, not Amazon's appeals process.
• Track your FBA inventory position. A prolonged freeze can result in inventory removal, storage fees, or disposal – costs that accrue regardless of the litigation outcome and that may be recoverable as part of the damages analysis if the TRO is dissolved.
• If the TRO is dissolved or the case is resolved, you will need to provide the court's order to Amazon directly to trigger the account and fund release. The process is administrative but requires the correct documentation; your counsel should manage this step.

In the matters we handle, the account-management track and the litigation track are always run together. Sellers who focus only on the litigation without managing the account side often find that FBA inventory costs have accumulated significantly by the time the legal resolution arrives.

Phase 6: Common Mistakes to Avoid Before Counsel Engages

The period between learning of the freeze and retaining counsel is the highest-risk window. Several actions that feel instinctively correct can materially weaken a defense or create new legal exposure.

• Do not contact the plaintiff directly. Reaching out to the brand owner or their counsel without representation can constitute an informal admission, waive privilege, or compromise your negotiating position. Communications before counsel engages are discoverable.
• Do not file anything in the court case yourself unless you are an attorney admitted in the relevant jurisdiction. Pro se filings in federal IP cases are reviewed skeptically, and a poorly framed pro se motion can establish the wrong factual record before counsel can correct it.
• Do not assume that being named in a large group complaint means you will be overlooked. Plaintiffs in Schedule A cases are often well-resourced and pursue defaults aggressively. Default judgments carry statutory damages and can include attorney fee awards.
• Do not assume that because your products were genuine or authorized, the case will resolve itself. The plaintiff's burden for obtaining a TRO is low – lower than for a full preliminary injunction – and a TRO can be entered even against a seller with a strong defense if the plaintiff presents the facts favorably to the court in an ex parte application.
• Do not take the plaintiff's settlement demand at face value without independent assessment. Initial demands in Schedule A cases are often set well above what the plaintiff will ultimately accept. Understanding the realistic range requires a read of the plaintiff's filing history and the court's attitude toward the case.

The myth that being named in a Schedule A case means an automatic loss is one we regularly see stop sellers from acting in time. It is not true. Joinder challenges, jurisdiction motions, TRO dissolution, and merits defenses all produce real outcomes in these cases. The constraint is not whether defenses exist – it is whether they are raised before the procedural windows close.

Phase 7: Engaging Counsel and What to Expect

Attorney representation in a Schedule A TRO defense matter typically begins with a review of the docket, the TRO order, and the seller's sourcing documentation before any filings are made. That review shapes the strategy: which procedural challenges are available, what the settlement range looks like, and whether a dissolution motion or a jurisdiction challenge is the better opening move.

• Provide your counsel with the full docket number, the frozen account details, and all sourcing documents at the outset. Incomplete documentation at intake delays the response, and delays in TRO defense matter.
• Understand the fee structure before engagement. Tutamen's Schedule A defense work is structured on a fixed engagement fee, with a success component in appropriate cases – quoted up front after a short review of the matter. There are no open-ended hourly billing surprises.
• Expect a realistic assessment of options, not a guarantee. The realistic options in any given matter depend on the IP claim, the court, the plaintiff's posture, and the evidence. We work to move to dissolve or narrow the restraining order, challenge jurisdiction and joinder where those arguments are available, and open settlement on commercially reasonable terms where that is the better path.
• Ask about timelines at intake. Schedule A defense is time-sensitive: preliminary injunction hearings have fixed windows, jurisdiction challenges must be raised before substantive engagement, and default judgment risk increases every day the seller is not in the case.

Our work is attorney-led and confidential. Every matter is assessed on its own facts before any strategic recommendation is made. For a read on your account and the docket, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – full practice coverage for Amazon US sellers named as federal defendants
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – for account deactivations driven by Amazon policy rather than a court order

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does resolving sealed complaint against online stores usually take on Amazon US?

Resolution timelines vary considerably depending on the route taken. A successful TRO dissolution motion or a jurisdictional dismissal can resolve the immediate asset freeze within a matter of weeks. A negotiated settlement, where the parties reach commercial agreement without full merits litigation, often resolves in several weeks to a few months after counsel engages. Full merits defense through the preliminary injunction and beyond takes substantially longer. The most time-sensitive window is the period between the TRO and the preliminary injunction hearing – typically a short, defined interval set by the court. Acting before that hearing is the priority in most matters.

What are the main risks if I handle sealed complaint against online stores alone?

The primary risks of handling a Schedule A TRO defense without counsel are procedural: missing the preliminary injunction hearing window, failing to raise jurisdiction or misjoinder challenges before substantive engagement waives them, and filing materials in the court record that set an unfavorable factual baseline. There is also a negotiation risk – settlement demands in Schedule A cases are typically set high, and assessing what the realistic range is requires knowledge of the plaintiff's filing history and the court's approach. Default judgment, which carries statutory damages, is the outcome for sellers who do not appear at all.

Do I need a lawyer for sealed complaint against online stores?

In practical terms, yes. A corporation or LLC cannot appear pro se in US federal court – a business entity must be represented by a licensed attorney. The procedural mechanics of TRO defense, jurisdiction challenges, and misjoinder motions require federal court practice. Beyond the technical requirement, the strategy decisions – which arguments to lead with, whether to move for dissolution or negotiate, how to position the account for release after resolution – turn on litigation experience in Schedule A matters specifically. The cost of representation is typically far lower than the value of a frozen account balance or the exposure from a default judgment.

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 Schedule A practice covers TRO defense, dissolution motions, jurisdiction and joinder challenges, and settlement negotiation – with fixed fees quoted after a short review of the matter. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Author: Sofia Marchetti – Partner, Schedule A / Federal Defense

Page authored by Sofia Marchetti, Partner, Schedule A / Federal Defense, 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.