Before you act on served through a marketplace platform: a checklist

A federal court order arrives through eBay's platform notification system before a seller has any idea a lawsuit exists. The account is frozen. Inventory may be locked. And the clock – which started running the moment the order was signed – is already ticking. What a seller does in the first 48 to 72 hours shapes every option that follows.

TL;DRBeing served through a marketplace platform in a Schedule A case means a US federal court has authorized service of process via the platform itself, usually alongside a temporary restraining order (TRO) that freezes your eBay funds and assets. The order does not mean you have lost. Schedule A defendants who act quickly – reviewing the order, preserving communications, and retaining counsel before a court deadline passes – have meaningful legal options that disappear if they wait.

This checklist walks through five phases: confirming what was actually served, understanding the legal machinery, protecting your position in the first hours, evaluating your options, and making the decision about how to respond. Each phase carries concrete checks. The goal is to put the seller – not the plaintiff's timeline – in control of what happens next.

Phase 1: Confirm what was actually served and when

The single most important step in the first hour is reading every document you received – not skimming, reading – because the deadlines and obligations are embedded in the text of the order itself.

Schedule A cases are a category of US federal intellectual-property lawsuits filed against large groups of online sellers, typically listed together on an exhibit called "Schedule A." Plaintiffs use them to obtain ex parte TROs (orders issued without prior notice to the defendant) that freeze accounts on marketplaces and payment processors simultaneously. On eBay, service often comes through a platform notification rather than a process server at your door – which means sellers can miss it or mistake it for routine correspondence.

In matters we handle, one of the most common early mistakes is a seller who received the notice but did not treat it as a court order. That delay cost them options. The moment you see a notice referencing a court, a case, a TRO, or an asset freeze, treat it as legally operative and time-sensitive.

Check each of the following before moving to Phase 2:

• Locate the complete document set – the complaint, the TRO order, the Schedule A exhibit, and any service affidavit. All pages matter.
• Identify the court and the case caption. Write down the district, the judge's name, and the case number exactly as they appear.
• Find the date and time the TRO was issued. This is distinct from the date you received it.
• Find the "show cause" date – the hearing at which the plaintiff will ask for a preliminary injunction. This date is a hard deadline. Missing it forfeits your ability to oppose the injunction.
• Identify which platforms and payment accounts are named in the freeze order. eBay accounts, PayPal balances, and associated payment rails are often all covered by a single order.
• Check whether your specific store name or seller ID is on Schedule A, or whether you were swept in through a broader identifier (email address, payment account, related listing).
• Note whether the order includes an asset-transfer prohibition. Many do. Moving funds after receiving a freeze order that prohibits transfer can constitute contempt.

Do not contact the plaintiff's counsel until you have reviewed every document and spoken with your own attorney. Unsolicited outreach can be used against you in settlement negotiations.

What is the "SAD scheme" and why does it target eBay sellers specifically?

The "SAD scheme" – Schedule A Defendants – is a litigation strategy used by brand and IP owners to sue large numbers of e-commerce sellers in a single federal complaint, bundling them together on an exhibit rather than filing individual cases. It is structurally designed for speed and cost-efficiency on the plaintiff's side; defendants are the parties who bear the surprise and the urgency.

eBay is a frequent target surface because its open marketplace model allows third-party sellers to list branded and non-branded goods side by side, and because eBay maintains identifiable seller accounts, payment histories, and store records that can be named in a court order. When a federal court authorizes service through the platform, eBay receives the order and executes the freeze, often before the seller has any direct notice.

The practical consequence for an eBay seller is that the first signal they get is not a lawsuit in their mailbox – it is a locked account and a platform notification. That inversion of the normal notice sequence is intentional. For a full explanation of how Schedule A cases are structured and what the pretrial phases look like, see our complete guide to Schedule A / TRO defense for sellers.

What does the "served through a marketplace platform" formulation mean legally? It means the court authorized substitute service – delivery of legal process via the platform's own communications system – rather than requiring personal service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Courts in this circuit have accepted this method in Schedule A matters because defendants often operate anonymously or internationally, making traditional service impractical. The legal validity of that service can itself be challenged, but that challenge must be raised promptly in your responsive filing.

Check each of the following for this phase:

• Confirm whether your eBay account is actually frozen or whether only a notice was served. Both trigger deadlines; the frozen account also triggers immediate cash-flow consequences.
• Check whether your PayPal or managed-payments account shows a hold or a restricted status. An eBay-linked payment freeze may have been executed separately.
• If you use fulfillment services or warehouse partners, check whether any inventory holds have been communicated to them.
• Identify whether you were named individually, as a business entity, or by your seller alias. This affects which entity needs to respond and whether you face personal liability exposure.

Phase 2: Protect your position in the first 48 hours

The first 48 hours after service is the window in which a seller can preserve the most options – and the window in which the most irreversible mistakes happen.

The asset freeze in a TRO is not a judgment. It is a temporary measure designed to prevent dissipation of assets while the court decides whether to issue a preliminary injunction. That distinction is critical: a TRO can be challenged, modified, or dissolved. But those remedies require timely motion practice, and motions require an attorney, evidence, and a filing deadline that you have not yet missed.

We regularly see sellers who spent the first 48 hours trying to negotiate with eBay support rather than retaining counsel. eBay's compliance team cannot unfreeze an account that is subject to a court order – only a court can do that. Platform support escalation is not a legal remedy.

Check each of the following before the first 48 hours pass:

• Do not move, transfer, or withdraw any funds from any account named in the freeze order. Even if the funds appear accessible, an unauthorized transfer may constitute contempt of the order.
• Do not delete listings, order histories, communications, or any store records. A litigation hold is implied from the moment you receive service. Destruction of potentially relevant records creates spoliation risk.
• Preserve every email, platform notification, and document related to your eBay store, your sourcing relationships, and your intellectual-property chain (invoices, authorization letters, license agreements).
• Screenshot or download your eBay account dashboard, order history, and performance metrics as of the date of service. Platforms sometimes modify or limit access after a court order is received.
• Identify and gather authorization documentation for any products named in the complaint – supplier invoices, brand authorization letters, licensing agreements, proof of purchase from authorized distributors.
• Retain legal counsel before contacting the plaintiff's attorney, responding to the platform, or filing anything with the court. A pro se response in a federal IP case is rarely effective and often narrows your options.

The asset freeze affects more than your eBay balance. For a focused checklist on frozen marketplace and payment funds – what they cover, what they do not, and how to map every held balance – see our guide on frozen PayPal and marketplace funds.

An eBay seller in a home-goods category (winter 2025) contacted us within 24 hours of receiving a platform notification. The TRO had frozen a mid-five-figure balance across an eBay store and a linked payment account. We mapped the freeze perimeter, identified that the seller held authorization documentation from the brand owner for every SKU named in the complaint, gathered the supplier chain evidence, and moved to dissolve the TRO on that basis. The account was restored to normal operational status before the preliminary injunction hearing.

Phase 3: Understand your legal options and the realistic procedural path

A Schedule A TRO case does not move like ordinary civil litigation. The plaintiff has already obtained emergency relief; the burden is now on the defendant to act within the court's compressed schedule.

The three realistic procedural paths for a Schedule A defendant are: (1) move to dissolve or modify the TRO and oppose the preliminary injunction; (2) enter settlement negotiations with the plaintiff; or (3) default – which means the plaintiff will seek a default judgment including potentially the maximum statutory damages available under the relevant IP statute. Default is almost never the right choice when there is any defense or any negotiating leverage, but it is what happens when sellers miss deadlines.

A motion to dissolve or modify the TRO is appropriate when the defendant has evidence that the underlying claims are weak – for example, because the seller was an authorized reseller, the plaintiff's IP rights are disputed, or the seller was misjoined (bundled into the Schedule A case improperly). Challenging personal jurisdiction is also an available argument in some cases, particularly for foreign-domiciled sellers. These arguments must be raised in a timely responsive filing; they cannot be saved for later.

Settlement is the resolution path in a significant share of Schedule A cases. Plaintiffs using the SAD scheme often file against dozens or hundreds of sellers simultaneously; many of those plaintiffs are willing to settle for a payment and a consent injunction, particularly when the defendant produces evidence of legitimate sourcing or lack of infringement. The terms of settlement, the amount, and the scope of the injunction are all negotiable – but only while the case is open and before a default judgment is entered.

The realistic decision matrix looks like this: if the complaint cites counterfeiting and you have no sourcing documentation, settlement is likely the most cost-effective route, and the earlier you engage, the better the terms tend to be. If you hold authorization documentation and were misjoined or have a legitimate defense on the merits, a motion to dissolve is worth evaluating – we work through that analysis based on the exact products named and the IP registrations at issue. If you were served but are not actually selling the products described, a misjoinder or jurisdiction challenge may be the cleanest path.

Check each of the following for this phase:

• Note the show-cause / preliminary injunction hearing date and work backward. Responsive filings are typically due several days in advance; confirm the local rules for the relevant district.
• Identify which intellectual property is asserted – trademark, copyright, patent, or a combination. Each has different defenses and different damages exposure.
• Assess your sourcing documentation for every product named: can you trace the chain from the brand owner or an authorized distributor to your eBay listing?
• Consider whether you are properly joined. If you sell in a different product category from the majority of other Schedule A defendants in the same case, misjoinder may be arguable.
• Evaluate default judgment risk realistically. Statutory damages under the relevant IP statutes can be substantial per infringed work or mark; your counsel will quantify your exposure range as part of the engagement.

Phase 4: Evaluate the trade-offs – fight, settle, or challenge the TRO specifically

Every Schedule A case presents a decision about where to spend time and money – and the right answer depends on facts the seller is often best positioned to know: the authorization chain, the sourcing history, and the volume of sales of the named products.

What is the myth that costs sellers the most here? That being named in a Schedule A case means the outcome is predetermined. It does not. In matters we handle, sellers who arrive with clean sourcing documentation and a clear account history frequently resolve cases on terms that preserve their ability to continue selling on eBay and other platforms. The SAD scheme is designed for volume; plaintiffs often have limited appetite for contested litigation against a defendant who can demonstrate legitimate operations.

The trade-off between fighting and settling is not purely legal – it is commercial. A motion to dissolve the TRO and oppose the preliminary injunction may take several weeks and requires attorney time, court filings, and evidentiary preparation. Settlement can in some cases be reached more quickly, though the terms need to be right: a consent injunction that is too broad can effectively bar you from selling certain product categories across all platforms. Read consent-injunction terms carefully before signing.

Check each of the following for this phase:

• What is the commercial value of your eBay business compared with the cost of defense? Your attorney can help model the decision, but you need to know your own numbers: monthly revenue from the store, the frozen balance amount, and your inventory exposure.
• Does the consent injunction in the plaintiff's draft settlement cover only the named products, or does it extend to a broader category? Overly broad injunctions can affect future product lines.
• If settling, confirm the settlement includes a release of the asset freeze – platform accounts and payment accounts separately, as they may require separate documentation.
• If fighting, confirm your counsel has reviewed the specific IP registrations cited in the complaint for validity, scope, and any relevant defenses (genericness, fair use, prior art for patent claims).
• For foreign-domiciled sellers, evaluate personal jurisdiction. Some courts have been receptive to jurisdictional challenges by non-US sellers who had minimal contacts with the filing district.

For guidance on the immediate financial impact of a platform freeze and what options exist to address the hold on funds during litigation, see our briefing on emergency response to an asset freeze.

Phase 5: The immediate next steps after the checklist

The checklist is not a substitute for legal representation in a federal court proceeding. It is a map for the first hours – the period when you are gathering information and deciding whether and how to act. Once you have completed Phases 1 through 4, the immediate next step is engaging an attorney who handles Schedule A TRO defense specifically, before the show-cause deadline.

The steps we take when we come into a Schedule A matter for an eBay seller: move to dissolve or narrow the restraining order where the evidence supports it, challenge jurisdiction and joinder where those arguments are available, and open settlement discussions on terms that protect the seller's ability to continue operating on eBay and other platforms. That sequence depends on which option is actually available – which is determined by the specific notice, the IP claims, and the account history.

Check each of the following before closing this checklist:

• Have you confirmed the show-cause hearing date and marked it on your calendar with a five-day buffer for filing preparation?
• Have you gathered and preserved all sourcing documentation, authorization letters, supplier invoices, and platform records?
• Have you avoided transferring any frozen funds or deleting any account records?
• Have you refrained from contacting the plaintiff's counsel without your own attorney present?
• Have you retained, or begun the process of retaining, legal counsel with Schedule A / TRO defense experience?
• Have you reviewed the consent-injunction terms in any draft settlement that has already been sent?
• For sellers with related accounts on Amazon, Walmart, or other platforms: have you checked whether the freeze order names those accounts as well?

A second micro-case to illustrate the range: a US-based electronics accessories seller on eBay (spring 2026) came to us after missing the initial show-cause hearing deadline because they had mistaken the platform notification for a routine policy notice. The case was further along than we would have preferred. We challenged personal jurisdiction and opened settlement negotiations simultaneously, ultimately resolving the matter with a narrowly scoped consent injunction that did not prevent the seller from continuing to sell the named product category using different sourcing. Not every case allows that result; the earlier the engagement, the more options remain open.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – full practice hub for federal IP defense and asset-freeze response
• IP & Brand Registry – handling rights-owner complaints, counter-notices, and retraction requests across platforms

If your eBay account has been frozen through a platform notification referencing a federal case, this is the point to get a read from counsel. The checklist above tells you what to gather and what not to do; the next step is a confidential review of the actual order. Email info@tutamenlaw.com with the case caption and the platform notification, and we will respond with an honest assessment of what the order says and what your realistic options are.

Frequently asked questions: served through a marketplace platform on eBay

How long does resolving served through a marketplace platform usually take on eBay?

The timeline varies significantly depending on which path is taken. A contested TRO motion typically resolves within several weeks of the show-cause hearing – the hearing itself is usually set within a short window of the TRO being issued. Settlement negotiations can move faster if both parties are motivated and the seller has documentation; they can also extend over several months in complex cases. A default judgment can enter in a matter of weeks if the defendant does not respond. The earliest decision point – whether to appear and oppose – is the one with the shortest window, usually measured in days from service.

What are the main risks if I handle served through a marketplace platform alone?

The primary risks are missing a court deadline (which results in a default judgment and potential loss of all defenses), making statements in communications with the plaintiff's counsel that narrow your negotiating position, agreeing to a consent-injunction scope that is broader than necessary, and failing to challenge the TRO on grounds that would have been available had they been raised in time. Federal IP litigation follows strict procedural rules; a pro se response that does not address the right legal standards is unlikely to succeed even if the underlying defense is strong.

Do I need a lawyer for served through a marketplace platform?

Yes, for any matter in federal court. A TRO with an asset freeze is a federal court order. Opposing it, settling it, or even negotiating a consent injunction requires filing documents in federal court that comply with procedural rules, local rules, and substantive IP law. The stakes – potential statutory damages, a platform ban, and a court injunction – make this a matter where attorney-led representation is not optional if you intend to do anything other than default. Fixed-fee engagement models exist for Schedule A defense; cost should not be the reason a seller forgoes counsel.

Can the asset freeze on my eBay account be released before the case ends?

Yes. A TRO freeze is temporary by design. It can be dissolved or modified by a successful motion, by voluntary agreement with the plaintiff (as part of settlement or in exchange for security), or by a court order following the preliminary injunction hearing. The release must cover the platform account and the payment account separately, as these are technically distinct holds. Your attorney should confirm that both releases are documented before you treat the funds as accessible.

What happens if I was included on Schedule A by mistake – I do not sell the products named?

Misjoinder is a recognized argument in Schedule A litigation. If you were named in a case that concerns products you do not sell, or if the complaint's basis for including you is thin or factually incorrect, a motion to sever and dismiss is available. Courts have granted these motions in Schedule A matters where the connection between a particular defendant and the other defendants or the plaintiff's IP claims was insufficient. Raise this argument promptly; it is most effective before or at the preliminary injunction stage.

---

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. Every Schedule A engagement is handled by attorneys with direct experience in federal TRO and asset-freeze proceedings; we do not outsource the defense. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Noah Brennan – federal litigation & Schedule A analyst

Page authored by Noah Brennan, Federal Litigation & Schedule A 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.