eBay account suspended: why VeRO, evidence and timing matter

The case: eleven weeks before the urgent application

A seller sought to reactivate two suspended sales accounts and restore removed listings. The dispute concerned complaints about sales of used software. Eleven weeks elapsed between the suspension on 11 October 2021 and receipt of his urgent application on 27 December 2021. His appeal was unsuccessful (Brandenburg Higher Regional Court, judgment of 21 July 2022, 10 U 65/22, reasons I and II.2.a).

The decisive issue was lack of urgency. The platform had repeatedly refused reinstatement and had shown no willingness to settle. Continuing correspondence did not justify the delay. The court expressly left open whether the seller had a substantive right to reinstatement. The judgment therefore neither approves every suspension nor establishes a safe eleven-week waiting period (reasons II.2.a.bb to dd and II.3).

The later constitutional proceedings did not change the result: the Constitutional Court of Brandenburg dismissed the complaint as inadmissible on 23 May 2025 (VfGBbg 4/23, operative part and paragraphs 14 to 15). This was not a ruling on the substantive lawfulness of the account suspension.

VeRO report: which right is allegedly infringed?

Rights holders can use VeRO to report eBay listings for alleged intellectual property infringement. Does the complaint concern the product, a photograph, listing text or a trade mark? This determines the evidence needed. For example, an invoice for genuine goods does not by itself establish permission to use the product photograph.

For listings removed by mistake, eBay identifies an internal complaint and contacting the reporting rights holder to seek withdrawal. Our assessment: both routes should be prepared using the same verifiable facts. Merely alleging that a competitor wants to cause harm does not replace examination of the asserted right or evidence of the seller’s own entitlement.

Where a report concerns critical writing or other expressions of opinion, freedom of expression under Article 5(1) of the German Basic Law must be considered separately. It is limited, in particular, by general laws and does not replace permission to use others’ photographs. The OLG judgment discussed here does not decide such an expression dispute or establish blanket priority for either platforms or merchants.

Internal complaints and court proceedings follow different rules

eBay’s current internal complaint system covers certain content decisions, related account measures and trader identity checks. For the DSA complaints described by eBay, the platform specifies six months from its notification. It separately explains complaint options for business users under the P2B Regulation.

That internal period is not a judicial urgency deadline. The Brandenburg court explained that the different dispute resolution routes need not necessarily be pursued in sequence. Its 2022 judgment does not decide today’s DSA rules. Its warning about self-inflicted delay remains relevant when planning an urgent application (reasons II.2.a.dd; sections 935 and 940 of the German Code of Civil Procedure).

Lost turnover alone is not a complete case for urgent relief

Immediate reinstatement may effectively grant the relief sought in the main proceedings. The court therefore discussed the particular requirements for such an order. It did not need finally to decide whether these were met because of the delay. It nevertheless explained that turnover figures alone do not fully show other income, assets or the actual financial position (reasons II.2.b.aa).

For legal preparation, this means documenting liquidity, due expenses, alternative sales channels and specific imminent harm alongside the suspension notice. An interim injunction remains case-specific. An injunction obtained without justification may trigger liability under section 945 of the German Code of Civil Procedure.

Assess withheld payouts separately

eBay distinguishes holds relating to individual transactions, disputes and the account as a whole. A payment claim should therefore identify which amounts from which sales are affected and any counterclaims or open buyer cases. Account reinstatement and payment of a balance are distinct objectives. The judgment discussed here does not decide a payment claim.

Documents that help with the assessment

A consistent case file helps establish whether an actual breach needs correcting, a false report needs rebutting or an inappropriate measure needs challenging. Do not send passwords or two-factor authentication codes.

• Suspension notice, full reasons, item numbers and date of first knowledge.
• VeRO notice, asserted right, reporting party and affected product presentation.
• Invoices, provenance records, licences and original files where relevant.
• All appeals and responses in chronological order, together with payout reports and liquidity documents.