AC2 Sales / Brand protection
Two completely different problems get called “unauthorized sellers.” Amazon will act on one of them and will never act on the other. Most advice online blurs the two, which is why brands keep filing reports that go nowhere.
A brand notices an offer on its own listing that it did not put there. The instinct is to report it to Amazon and wait for it to disappear. Sometimes that works within days. Sometimes nothing happens at all, ever, no matter how many cases get opened.
The difference is not how well you write the report. It is which of two problems you actually have.
Scroll sideways to compare both columns →
| Someone with no right to your brand | Someone selling genuine product below MAP | |
|---|---|---|
| What they have | Counterfeit, diverted, or misrepresented goods | Real product they bought legitimately |
| Who enforces | Amazon | You and your supply chain — never Amazon |
| The lever | Brand Registry: IP and policy violations | The reseller agreement, and cutting off supply |
| Realistic outcome | The offer comes down | The seller complies, or stops being your reseller |
This is the one Amazon will help with, and Brand Registry is the tool. It is worth being precise about what that actually covers, because “unauthorized” is not itself a violation of anything. Amazon acts on intellectual property infringement — trademark, copyright, patent — and on policy breaches such as used product sold as new, or an item materially not as described.
What it does not cover is the case brands most often assume it does: a seller with genuine product, legally acquired, who simply is not on your approved list. Amazon generally allows that offer to stand. Being uninvited is not an infringement.
We own a small private-label brand of our own, and we have been on the receiving end of this several times — other sellers appearing on our listing uninvited. Because the brand was registered, the path was straightforward: a warning first, and where that was ignored, a Brand Registry case. They came off.
That is the honest scale of it — a handful of incidents on our own products, not a war. We mention it because the mechanics are the same at any size, and because a page like this should tell you where its author’s experience actually comes from.
Amazon changes these processes regularly, and the enforcement interface in particular has moved more than once. Treat the sequence above as the shape of the thing rather than a screenshot-accurate walkthrough, and check the current Brand Registry help pages for the exact steps on the day you file.
Here is the part that costs brands the most time, because they spend months trying to solve it with the wrong tool.
Amazon does not enforce MAP. Not slowly, not reluctantly, not if you escalate to the right team. A MAP policy is a contract between a brand and its resellers, and Amazon is not a party to it. Enforcing it would place Amazon into resale price maintenance, which carries genuine antitrust exposure, and it would also mean actively suppressing the lowest price on its own marketplace — against everything the algorithm is built to do. There is no version of Amazon where this changes.
So the report you were going to file does not exist. What happens instead is mechanical: the low offer tends to take the featured offer position, other resellers match it rather than lose the sale, and within a few days the listing has a new floor. One violation does not stay one violation.
In our experience violations cluster in off hours — nights, weekends, and holidays — on the assumption that whoever monitors the listing has gone home. It is a reasonable assumption about most brands. Monitoring that stops at 6pm on Friday misses the entire window a violator is most likely to use.
We monitor continuously, using a mix of commercial tools and some we built ourselves, for exactly this reason. The specific tooling matters less than the fact that it does not clock off.
Since Amazon will not act, the only real leverage is commercial: the seller either complies or stops being able to buy the product. In practice that means a warning — from the brand, or from us where we represent the brand — referencing the policy they agreed to. Repeat offenders who will not comply get cut off by the supplier.
This has an obvious prerequisite that a surprising number of brands skip. If your resellers never signed a MAP policy, there is nothing to enforce and no grounds to cut anyone off. Monitoring tells you a violation happened. The agreement is what lets you do something about it.
This is the piece we would most want a brand to understand, because it decides whether enforcement will work at all.
Whether a seller complies is mostly a function of whether your product sells at MAP.
A seller moving inventory at the policy price has a business worth protecting. Warn them and they comply, because losing supply costs them a revenue stream they want to keep. Enforcement works, and it works quickly.
A seller sitting on stale inventory of an oversaturated product is in a completely different position. They are not planning to reorder. Being cut off costs them nothing they value. Breaking MAP to clear the stock is, from where they sit, the rational move — and no warning you send changes that arithmetic.
Persistent MAP violation is often a symptom rather than the disease. If the same products keep getting dumped, the question is not why enforcement is failing — it is why there is that much stranded inventory in the channel, and who keeps putting it there.
That is a distribution and forecasting problem. No monitoring tool fixes it, and any partner who tells you enforcement alone will is selling you something.
Two decisions prevent more MAP violations than any enforcement process, and both are made long before anyone breaks a policy.
Do not oversaturate the channel. Every additional reseller carrying the identical product is another party competing for the same finite demand, and the ones who lose that competition end up holding stock they need to clear. Authorizing sellers generously feels like distribution; past a certain point it is just manufacturing the inventory that will be dumped on your listing six months later. Fewer, better-matched resellers is a pricing-integrity decision, not only a logistics one.
Make the listing actually convert. This sounds like a separate discipline and it is not. A listing with real keyword coverage, images that answer the objection, and content that earns the click is a listing where product sells through at the policy price. When it sells at MAP, your resellers have a business worth protecting and enforcement has teeth. When it does not, you have built a channel full of people whose only exit is a discount — and you will be chasing violations forever.
Listing quality, seller count, and price integrity are the same problem viewed from three angles. Brands tend to staff them as three separate ones.
No. Brand Registry is an intellectual-property and policy tool, not a distribution-control tool. If a seller has genuine product that they acquired legally, Amazon generally lets the offer stand. What Amazon will act on is a trademark, copyright or patent violation, or a policy breach such as used sold as new, or a listing that is materially not as described.
No, and it is not going to start. A MAP policy is an agreement between a brand and its resellers, and Amazon is not a party to it. Enforcing it on a brand's behalf would put Amazon into resale price maintenance, which carries real antitrust exposure, and it also runs against Amazon's own interest in showing the lowest available price. MAP is enforced through your reseller agreements and your supply, or it is not enforced at all.
The low offer tends to take the featured offer, and other resellers match it rather than lose the sale. One violation becomes a price the whole listing settles at, which is why catching it early matters more than catching it thoroughly.
It depends entirely on which problem you have. On the IP side, with a registered brand, a documented report is usually straightforward. On the MAP side there is no removal at all, only a commercial decision by whoever supplies them.
Usually because there is too much of the product in the channel relative to how fast it sells. A reseller holding stock they cannot move at the policy price, who was not planning to reorder anyway, has no commercial reason to comply. That is a distribution and listing-performance problem wearing a compliance costume, and enforcement alone will not resolve it.
Yes. Without a policy your resellers have signed, there is nothing to enforce and nothing to cut anyone off for. Monitoring tells you a violation happened; the agreement is what lets you do something about it.
We monitor the seller landscape on the ASINs we are responsible for, document violations, and escalate them — through Amazon where it is an IP matter, and through your supply agreements where it is a pricing one. We will also tell you honestly when the problem is distribution rather than enforcement.
Get a channel audit