Temporary restraining order on a seller account: what to do, step by step

A court order froze your Amazon US seller account before you received a single notice. Your listings are gone, your balance is locked, and a case number you have never seen before is already on file in a federal district court. That is the opening move in what practitioners call a "Schedule A" or SAD scheme action – and the window for an effective response is very short.

TL;DRA temporary restraining order on a seller account is an ex parte federal court order, obtained without prior notice to the seller, that simultaneously freezes the account's funds and disables the listings. Sellers named as Schedule A defendants have concrete procedural options: move to dissolve or narrow the order, challenge joinder or personal jurisdiction, and open settlement discussions – but the right path depends on the specific allegations, the TRO's precise terms, and how quickly counsel engages. Being named in a Schedule A case is not an automatic loss.

This guide walks through every step in sequence – from the moment you notice the account freeze to the point where the case resolves. It covers what is actually happening legally, where sellers typically go wrong on their own, and the decision points that change the outcome. Each step has a self-contained action and a realistic time window.

What is actually happening when a TRO freezes a seller account?

A temporary restraining order on a seller account is an ex parte injunction – meaning a federal judge granted it on the plaintiff's motion alone, without the seller ever being heard. That is not an irregularity; the Schedule A / SAD scheme procedure is specifically built around ex parte relief because plaintiffs argue that advance notice would allow sellers to move funds or inventory before the order is served. The result is that your first indication of the case is often the frozen account, not a complaint.

The plaintiff – typically a brand owner or a brand-enforcement litigation group – files a complaint in a US federal district court naming a large number of defendants as a group (the "Schedule A Defendants"). Each defendant is usually identified not by name but by a marketplace storefront. The court issues a TRO that directs Amazon to restrain all funds in the listed accounts and to disable the associated listings. Amazon executes the freeze as directed. There is no separate warning to the seller before this happens.

Once the TRO is in place, the plaintiff must either serve you and move for a preliminary injunction – a longer-term order requiring a full hearing – or the case moves toward settlement or dismissal. In practice, a significant share of Schedule A matters settle before a preliminary injunction hearing is held. Understanding that pressure dynamic is part of every defense strategy. For a fuller account of the procedural history of these cases and the legal arguments courts have accepted, see our complete guide to Schedule A TRO defense for sellers.

Step 1 – Confirm the freeze and locate the case (within 24–48 hours)

The first concrete step is confirming exactly what has been restrained and finding the underlying court filing. Do both before contacting anyone. Many sellers waste critical time calling Seller Central first; that call will not lift a court-ordered freeze, and it alerts no one who has authority to act.

To locate the case: Amazon's notice – if it arrives – will typically reference a court name and a case caption. If you have not yet received a formal notice, search the federal court's PACER system (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) by your seller name or storefront name. Searches by entity name or store name across district courts will usually surface the docket within a few hours if the case has been filed and made publicly accessible.

Document everything immediately. Take screenshots of your Seller Central account status, your current balance screen, any pending disbursements, and any notice messages in the system. Note the exact timestamp. This record is the baseline your legal team needs to assess the scope of the freeze and to identify whether the order as executed by Amazon matches the order as written by the court – discrepancies between the two do happen and can themselves be grounds for a motion.

At this step you are not yet deciding strategy. You are gathering the facts on which strategy will be built. What were the specific listings? What is the balance being held? What are the allegations in the complaint? The answers to those questions determine everything that follows.

Step 2 – Read the TRO itself before making any statement (hours 24–72)

The TRO document controls what you can and cannot do legally, and reading it carefully before doing anything else is not optional. Sellers who respond to plaintiffs' counsel before counsel engages on their side routinely give away negotiating position without realizing it.

The order will specify: which accounts or storefronts are frozen; which funds are covered; whether asset restraint extends to other payment accounts or platforms named in the complaint; any reporting obligations the defendant must fulfill; and the date set for a show-cause hearing or preliminary injunction hearing. That hearing date is a hard deadline. Missing it – or appearing at it without preparation – can result in a preliminary injunction that freezes funds for the duration of the case, which can be months.

The order also states the asserted basis: typically trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and often a claim of counterfeiting or trafficking in counterfeit goods. The distinction between a counterfeiting allegation and a standard infringement allegation matters because available remedies and the aggressiveness of plaintiffs differ. If the complaint alleges counterfeit goods but you are an authorized reseller, a gray-market seller, or a seller of a different product that shares a keyword – that factual record is a central part of the defense.

Do not contact the plaintiff's law firm directly before your own counsel is engaged. Statements made in that conversation can be used against you. This is one of the most common early mistakes we see in matters that come to us after sellers have already been speaking with the other side.

Step 3 – Engage counsel and assess the three decision paths (days 2–5)

By the time you have confirmed the freeze, located the case, and read the TRO, you are in a position to have a productive first conversation with a lawyer who handles Schedule A matters. That conversation should produce a clear assessment of the three main paths available in every TRO case.

Path A – Move to dissolve or narrow the TRO. If the order was obtained on legally insufficient grounds – for example, the joinder of hundreds of unrelated defendants in a single case, or a failure to meet the showing required for ex parte relief – a motion to dissolve or modify is the right first move. Courts have granted such motions in cases where misjoinder is clear, and the act of filing demonstrates that you are not a defaulting defendant. This path is most appropriate when the underlying allegation appears factually weak or jurisdictionally improper.

Path B – Challenge personal jurisdiction. Many Schedule A filings are made in federal districts where the plaintiff has little connection to the defendant. If you are a foreign seller or your business has no meaningful contact with the filing jurisdiction, a jurisdictional challenge can be dispositive. Raising it promptly is essential; waiting or participating without raising the objection can waive it.

Path C – Negotiate a resolution. Settlement is a realistic path in many matters, particularly where the allegations involve a genuinely contested IP question rather than outright counterfeiting, or where the seller can quickly document authorization. Settlement resolves the case, releases the fund freeze, and avoids the cost and unpredictability of full litigation – but the terms depend heavily on what defenses are credibly on the table. A seller who appears unrepresented and eager to pay typically receives worse settlement terms than a seller whose counsel has already filed a motion.

These paths are not mutually exclusive. In many matters we handle, we file an initial appearance and jurisdictional motion while simultaneously opening a dialogue on settlement. That combination creates leverage that a simple settlement request does not.

Step 4 – Address the asset freeze separately from the litigation (days 3–10)

The frozen balance and the court case are related, but they are not identical problems, and failing to address them separately is a common strategic error. The TRO directs Amazon to hold funds; getting those funds released requires either a court order lifting or modifying the restraint, or a settlement agreement that the plaintiff submits to the court. Neither of those happens automatically as a byproduct of responding to the complaint.

If funds held include revenue from products unrelated to the allegedly infringing listings, there may be an argument for partial release. The TRO's scope governs what is properly restrained; if Amazon has frozen a broader balance than the order covers, that over-freeze can be challenged through a motion to modify the order or through direct communication with plaintiff's counsel – once you have your own counsel in place.

Inventory is a separate question. FBA inventory associated with the frozen account may be subject to a removal hold or may continue to sit in Amazon's fulfillment centers incurring storage fees. Understanding your inventory rights under the order – and acting on them before a preliminary injunction converts short-term holds into long-term ones – is part of managing the commercial damage. For context on how fund freezes on other marketplaces work and how sellers have responded, see our analysis of why frozen funds by court order happens and how sellers respond on Walmart.

A home-goods FBA seller on Amazon US (spring 2025) came to us three days after noticing a frozen balance. The TRO named roughly two hundred storefronts; our initial review found that the plaintiff's complaint did not adequately distinguish our client's products from a different seller's line. We filed an appearance, raised misjoinder, and opened settlement discussions simultaneously. The account was released and the case resolved before the preliminary injunction hearing date. The seller's inventory had continued to accumulate storage fees in the interim – a cost that earlier action would have reduced.

Step 5 – Respond to the preliminary injunction hearing (deadline-driven)

A preliminary injunction hearing is the first adversarial proceeding where both sides are heard. The plaintiff must show that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of harms favors it, and that the public interest supports relief. These are genuinely litigable questions, not formalities.

The hearing date is set in the TRO itself. In many Schedule A cases the hearing is scheduled within a few weeks of the TRO's issuance. Your opposition papers – the brief, any supporting declarations, and any exhibits documenting authorization or non-infringement – must be filed before that date, according to the local rules of the district. Missing the filing deadline means the court may grant the preliminary injunction without a meaningful factual record from your side.

The most effective opposition papers in our practice establish two things concretely: first, that you have a legitimate defense on the merits (authorization, non-infringement, or a factual dispute about the goods); and second, that the harm to you from a continued freeze is concrete and disproportionate to any risk the plaintiff faces from a partial release. Affidavit evidence from the seller about the actual goods, supply chain, and business impact is often the most useful record to build – more so than purely legal argument in isolation.

Step 6 – Reach a resolution and recover the account (weeks to months)

Resolution takes one of three forms: a dismissal (with or without prejudice), a consent injunction, or a full litigated outcome. In the vast majority of Schedule A matters, resolution comes before a final merits ruling. The practical question is what the resolution terms say about the fund release, the account status, and any ongoing obligations.

A dismissal without prejudice leaves the plaintiff able to re-file. A dismissal with prejudice or a settlement that includes a release of all claims provides more durable protection. A consent injunction may prohibit future sale of specific products while releasing everything else – that can be acceptable depending on what you were actually selling. Reviewing the exact terms before signing is not optional; some consent orders have been used in later cases against the same seller when they were signed without careful legal review.

Once a settlement or dismissal order is entered, the plaintiff's counsel typically notifies Amazon directly to release the freeze. Amazon's processing of that notification takes additional time – in our experience, additional days to a week or more after the order is entered. Factor that into your cash-flow planning. For a broader walkthrough of asset-freeze situations across multiple marketplace contexts, our guide on asset freeze on a marketplace account: what to do step by step covers the range of scenarios.

An electronics accessories seller on Amazon US (winter 2026) came to us after receiving a default judgment notice – they had not responded to service and had missed the initial hearing. We filed a motion to vacate the default, supported by a declaration establishing that the seller had not received service at the registered address and had a legitimate defense on the merits. The motion was granted, the default was vacated, and the matter ultimately settled on negotiated terms. Default is not necessarily the end of the road, but it is significantly harder and more expensive to recover from than an early response would have been.

Where this process goes wrong

Every step in the sequence above has a predictable failure mode. Understanding them in advance is what distinguishes sellers who recover quickly from those whose accounts stay frozen for months.

The most common failure is delay. Sellers who wait for Amazon to "sort it out" or who spend the first week sending messages through Seller Central lose the window to file pre-injunction motions, forfeit negotiating leverage, and sometimes miss the preliminary injunction hearing entirely. An uncontested preliminary injunction is far harder to reverse than a TRO.

The second most common failure is making direct contact with plaintiff's counsel without independent representation. Sellers who call or email the plaintiff's law firm to explain that their products are genuine often end up providing factual admissions that complicate the defense. The plaintiff's counsel represents the plaintiff; they have no obligation to advise you of your rights.

A third failure is treating the fund freeze as the whole problem. Sellers who focus entirely on the money and ignore the underlying case sometimes accept settlement terms that prohibit sales in entire product categories, or that contain language that could be used in a future case.

Finally: the belief that being named in a Schedule A case means an automatic loss is wrong. Courts have dismissed these cases on misjoinder grounds, on jurisdictional grounds, and on the merits. The procedural path is there; it requires early, structured engagement to use it effectively.

If you have already made contact with plaintiff's counsel, already missed a deadline, or are dealing with a preliminary injunction rather than a TRO, the options narrow – but they rarely close entirely. The second read we do in those situations is about identifying what is still open and building the strongest possible record from the current position.

For a further read on the broader set of issues these cases raise – including what distinguishes the strongest motions to dissolve from ones that get denied – see our detailed briefing on Schedule A TRO defense for sellers.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – Federal court defense for marketplace sellers facing IP-based TROs and asset freezes
• Asset freeze on a marketplace account – Step-by-step response guide for court-ordered and platform-ordered freezes

If you have just discovered a frozen account or received a TRO notice, the sooner we can review the order the more options are available. Email info@tutamenlaw.com with a copy of the TRO and any case caption you have found, and we will review the position and respond promptly.

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving temporary restraining order on a seller account usually take on Amazon US?

The timeline varies considerably depending on the path taken. A pre-injunction settlement in a straightforward matter can resolve in several weeks from the TRO date. A contested preliminary injunction proceeding runs to the hearing date set in the order – often within a few weeks of issuance – and then to briefing and argument. Full litigation through to a merits ruling takes substantially longer and is uncommon in these cases. In many matters we handle, the practical question is whether to settle before the preliminary injunction hearing; if the terms are acceptable, that is frequently the faster and less costly path. Fund release after a settlement order is entered typically takes additional days to more than a week to process through Amazon.

What are the main risks if I handle temporary restraining order on a seller account alone?

Handling a TRO without counsel creates several serious risks. Sellers often miss procedural deadlines – particularly the preliminary injunction opposition deadline – which can convert a short-term freeze into a longer-term injunction. Direct contact with plaintiff's counsel without independent representation can result in inadvertent factual admissions. Settlement terms accepted without review sometimes contain broad prohibitions or language that creates liability in future cases. Default judgment – which is available if you do not appear and respond – is much harder and more expensive to undo than an early defense. These cases move on court schedules, not seller convenience, and the deadlines are hard.

Do I need a lawyer for temporary restraining order on a seller account?

Yes. A TRO is a federal court proceeding; the filing deadlines, the procedural rules, and the strategic decisions about which motions to bring and when require legal expertise that goes beyond marketplace operations. This is not a Seller Central dispute that can be resolved through internal appeals. The decisions made in the first few days – whether to move to dissolve, whether to challenge jurisdiction, whether and on what terms to open settlement talks – materially affect both the speed of resolution and the ultimate terms. Attorney-led representation also signals to plaintiff's counsel that the defendant is not a default candidate, which changes the negotiating dynamic.

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 response, motions to dissolve, jurisdictional challenges, preliminary injunction opposition, and settlement negotiation – handled by attorneys with direct experience in these cases, on a fixed-fee basis quoted after an initial review of the order. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Sofia Marchetti – Partner, Schedule A / Federal Defense, Tutamen

Published January 21, 2027.

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.