Marketplace lawyer in Paris: challenging the suspension of your seller account.

No, in principle. Where the seller is established in the Union and sells to consumers located in the Union, Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 requires the provider of an online intermediation service to send the statement of reasons for a restriction or suspension on a durable medium, before it takes effect or at the time it takes effect. That statement must mention the specific facts or circumstances, including the content of reports made by third parties, as well as the ground drawn from the general terms. The text dispenses with the statement in only two cases: a legal or regulatory obligation prohibits communicating these elements, or the platform proves repeated breaches of the general terms that led to the termination of all of its services. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 adds, for the hosting provider, the obligation to provide a clear and specific statement of reasons where the suspension of the account or of payments is based on the unlawful nature of the information provided or on its incompatibility with the general terms. An automated message that merely refers to a general policy does not always meet these requirements. The firm compares the notification received with these texts and with the general terms, then makes a request for full reasons. A lack of reasons does not always suffice to obtain reactivation, but it weakens the platform's position and may open an action for compensation on the basis of Article L. 442-1, III, of the Commercial Code.

Where the provider decides to terminate all of its services to a business user, Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 requires the statement of reasons to be sent at least thirty days before the termination takes effect. That period does not apply where the platform is bound by a legal obligation to terminate sooner, where it exercises a right of termination for a compelling reason provided for by national law, or where it proves that the seller has repeatedly infringed the general terms. In those cases, the statement of reasons is still owed without undue delay, except where the law prohibits communicating it or the termination results from proven repeated breaches, situations in which Article 4(5) dispenses with it. A distinction must therefore be drawn between temporary suspension, which may take effect immediately if reasons are given, and total termination, which in principle requires this notice. The label chosen by the platform is not decisive: although the Regulation provides for no automatic conversion into a termination, the practical effects of a suspension that continues may be argued as a termination, even a partial one, of an established commercial relationship within the meaning of Article L. 442-1, II, of the Commercial Code. The firm notes the date of notification, the effective date and the exception relied on, then checks that the platform really holds proof of the repeated breaches it alleges. These elements then determine the compensable loss.

The P2B Regulation requires the provider to offer an internal complaint-handling system that is accessible and provided without charge, that handles complaints within a reasonable time and that communicates an individualised outcome (Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150). This obligation does not apply to providers that are small enterprises within the meaning of the European recommendation. For its part, the Digital Services Act opens, for at least six months from the day the seller is informed of the decision, an internal complaint system against the suspension of the account, of the service or of the ability to monetise based on the unlawful nature of the information or its incompatibility with the general terms, and requires that the decision on the complaint be taken under the supervision of qualified staff and not solely by automated means (Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). That section of the Regulation does not apply to platforms that are micro or small enterprises, unless they have been designated as very large online platforms (Article 19). A useful complaint answers the alleged breach point by point, attaches the documents that contradict it and expressly requests a review. It avoids general admissions of breach, which the platform could treat as repeated breaches. The firm drafts or reviews this complaint, keeps proof of its filing and makes it the first document in any formal notice or urgent application.

The president of the commercial court may, even where there is a serious dispute, prescribe the measures restoring the previous position that are needed to prevent imminent damage or to put an end to a manifestly unlawful disturbance (Article 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In a case decided in Paris, the judge noted that “urgency remains for CNER to be able to regain normal use of its Amazon account, which is for it a channel for distributing its products and a source of turnover” (our translation) (TAE Paris, réf., 8 July 2026, No. J2026000518), and ordered reactivation within eight days of service of the order, without a daily penalty. The urgent application is not, however, a safe route. In another case concerning the suspension of a professional account on a cultural booking platform, the same court held that there were no grounds for an urgent ruling because the documents and statements “show the existence of serious disputes that exclude the powers of the urgent-applications judge” (our translation) (TAE Paris, réf., 12 June 2026, No. 2025083533). The firm takes this route only if the alleged breach can be disputed on the documents and if the harm to the business is shown by the account's figures.

The withholding of the balance is open to argument in light of the contract, the verification obligations that bear on the payment institution and whether or not the claim is disputed. In the Paris order of 8 July 2026, the payment company relied on the failure to complete the identity checks required under anti-money-laundering rules. The judge held those checks legitimate, while finding that “the obligation of AMAZON PAYMENTS EUROPE to pay the sum of €60,033.91 to CNER is not seriously disputable” (our translation) (TAE Paris, réf., 8 July 2026, No. J2026000518). The judge ordered the interim payment of that sum into the CARPA account of the seller's lawyer, who is in turn subject to vigilance obligations. This case-specific outcome shows two practical points: the claim targets the entity that actually holds the funds, and the seller must prove that it tried to satisfy the verification requests. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 also treats the suspension of payments as one of the restrictions that call for a statement of reasons, where it is based on the unlawful nature of the information provided by the seller or its incompatibility with the general terms. The firm reconstructs the balance, the suspended transfers and the verification exchanges before requesting release of the undisputed sums.

Each party must prove the facts necessary to succeed in its claim (Article 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Where the platform suspends an account by relying on a clause that refers to a serious or repeated breach by the seller, it must, if this is disputed, establish that the breach is attributable to the seller. In the case decided on 8 July 2026, the deactivation rested on a screenshot of a conversation that the seller claimed was fabricated. The judge held that “Amazon cannot, equally and in the name of a possible prior privilege that its standard-form contract would confer on it, reverse the burden of proof” (our translation) (TAE Paris, réf., 8 July 2026, No. J2026000518), and noted that the platform's counsel was unaware of the checks carried out on the authenticity of the document. The outcome depends on the case: if the platform produces consistent evidence, the seller's challenge may fail. The firm looks for what casts doubt on the document relied on, for example the chronology of the order, the customer's address or the consistency of the messages, and asks the platform to produce the report on which its decision is based.

Yes, where the blocking obtained was not justified. The Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) held that, when it comes from a person with a commercial interest, “a notification to a digital service provider seeking to stop the sale of a product is made at the risk of its author” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3e ch. 2e sect., 21 November 2025, No. 23/05116). It specifies that such a notification is wrongful if the prohibition sought would not have been ordered by a judgment on the merits, irrespective of the author's good faith, and ordered the author of the blocking requests to pay €43,000 in damages. The same judgment nevertheless rejected the application for an injunction to unblock. The reasoning draws on the case law on disparagement: concerning a letter sent by a copyright holder to a competitor's resellers, the Court of Cassation holds, in the absence of any court decision finding acts of copyright infringement, that “the mere fact of informing third parties of a possible infringement of those rights amounts to disparagement of the products alleged to be infringing” (our translation) (Cass. com., 15 October 2025, No. 24-11.150), a judgment of partial cassation with referral. The firm checks the existence, validity and scope of the right relied on before holding the author of the report liable under Article 1240 of the Civil Code.

The general terms of several marketplaces designate a foreign court. Their effect depends on the basis of the action and the stage of the proceedings. In a case where companies holding customer accounts and gift-voucher credits, rather than seller accounts, accused the platform of a sudden termination of commercial relations, the Nanterre economic activities court set the clause aside in favour of the French courts, holding that where the dispute concerns tort liability, the court of the place of the harmful event prevails; it then stated that “the court will declare itself without jurisdiction and refer the whole case to the Paris economic activities court” (our translation) (TAE Nanterre, 20 October 2026, No. 2024F02216), the court designated for the application of Article L. 442-1. In another case, the president of the same court accepted jurisdiction in urgent proceedings because an earlier, unchallenged order had already accepted it (TAE Nanterre, réf., 21 January 2025, No. 2024R01152). These outcomes are not a general rule: they depend on the basis relied on and the stage of the proceedings. The firm chooses the basis and the court before the writ of summons is issued, because a mistake can cost several months.

Paragraph II of Article L. 442-1 of the Commercial Code penalises the sudden termination, even partial, of an established commercial relationship without sufficient written notice, but reserves the right to terminate without notice where the other party fails to perform its obligations. The Paris urgent-applications judge ordered a subscription to a classified-ads site to be maintained until 31 December 2026 under a daily penalty, relying in particular on the fact that the relationship had lasted more than twelve years (TAE Paris, réf., 11 February 2026, No. 2026007039). Conversely, the Lille commercial court dismissed the claim of a seller whose catalogue had been removed from a marketplace, after finding a termination without notice, on the ground that “this is due to the failure over several years by BEOWERS to perform its obligations under the Marketplace services contract” (our translation) (TC Lille Métropole, 6 March 2025, No. 2023013520). This decision is unfavourable to the seller: repeated written warnings from the platform carry great weight. The firm measures the length and regularity of the flow of business, lists the warnings received and checks whether they concerned real breaches before relying on this basis.

The large marketplaces divide their activities among several companies: one operates the seller service, another holds the funds as a payment institution, and a French subsidiary sometimes performs commercial support functions. The choice of defendant determines the outcome. In a case decided by the Paris court of appeal, a seller whose account had been closed for a shipping-delay rate above the tolerated threshold could pursue only the French subsidiary, the Luxembourg companies having been excluded on jurisdiction; the court held that the emails produced did not establish “the existence of a regular, significant and stable flow of business characterising an established commercial relationship with Amazon France Services” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 4, 26 October 2022, No. 20/17089). The seller's claim was dismissed, and the decision is unfavourable to the seller. In the 2026 Paris order, the French subsidiary was likewise dismissed from the case, reactivation being ordered against the operating company and the interim payment against the payment company (TAE Paris, réf., 8 July 2026, No. J2026000518). The firm identifies each entity from the general terms and the statements before drafting the writ of summons.

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Article 30 requires platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, other than micro or small enterprises (Article 29), to collect, before any offer for sale, the trader's name, address, contact details, an identification document, payment account details, any registration, and a self-certification of the conformity of the products. Where the platform has reason to believe that an item of information is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date, it asks the trader to remedy it and, failing that, promptly suspends its service until the request has been fully complied with. Such a suspension is therefore first of all an obligation of the platform, and challenging it without having regularised the file has little chance of success. It becomes open to argument where the seller has supplied complete and reliable documents, where the platform does not specify the item it considers insufficient, or where it maintains the measure without review. The suspended trader keeps the right to lodge a complaint through the platform's internal system and before a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body (Article 30(4)). The firm reconstructs the list of requests, the documents sent and the acknowledgements of receipt, then makes a complaint that identifies the information in question precisely and requests the lifting of the suspension within a set time.

The loss is shown item by item from the account data and the seller's accounts: margin lost during the blocking, stock tied up or made unsaleable, logistics costs incurred, interrupted advertising campaigns, loss of ranking and customer reviews, and costs incurred for the complaint. The basis chosen affects the assessment: compensation for failure to comply with the P2B Regulation obligations (Article L. 442-1, III, of the Commercial Code), lack of notice in the event of sudden termination, fault of the author of an unjustified report (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) or breach of contract, the contract having to be performed in good faith (Article 1104 of the Civil Code). A general claim of lost turnover is not enough: the length of the interruption and the sales that could really have been made must be established. Where the evidence is held by the platform or by the author of the report, an investigative measure may be sought before any trial (Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The firm prepares a table of sales by item before and after the measure, ties each head of loss to a document and sets aside those that cannot be proved. For an example involving a major operator, see also our analysis of the suspended Amazon account.