The dates were in my records. The reason was not.

To the Platform Council,

What my records show

I am writing in support of the Platform Fairness Standard. I am not asking the Council to decide whether a platform was entitled to review my account. I am asking for a basic process when a review stops a small business from accessing its own money.

On 4 February 2026, my account dashboard showed a payout of ₹1,86,420 scheduled for the next day. That afternoon, I lost access to parts of the account and the payout status changed. The notice I could see said that my account needed verification. It did not identify a particular transaction, document or rule that needed attention.

On 6 February, I uploaded the documents requested through the account. On 13 February, I was asked to submit documents again. I did so, although I could not tell what was missing or what had been wrong with the first submission. On 20 February, I used the appeal option. I received confirmation that the appeal had been submitted, but no explanation of what a reviewer would consider or when I could expect a decision.

I kept the dates, the dashboard records and my bank statements. I also checked with my bank: it could confirm that the expected payment had not arrived, but it could not review another organisation’s account decision. I looked at the RBI Complaint Management System guidance too. That is a route for eligible complaints against RBI-regulated entities, after approaching the entity first; it is not an appeal process for a marketplace account decision. India’s Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 provide for grievance handling in the consumer context, but I could not find an equivalent, clear business-user appeal route for this kind of restriction.

On 23 March, ₹1,12,000 was released. The remaining ₹74,420 was released on 6 April. From the restriction on 4 February to the final release, the money was tied up for 61 days. The dates make the delay easy to state. They do not tell me why the restriction happened, what information would have resolved it sooner, or whether a person reviewed the appeal.

While I waited, ordinary bills did not wait with me. I postponed paying myself and borrowed ₹50,000 from family to cover immediate expenses. I repaid that loan in May. That was not a dramatic rescue; it was a private arrangement that kept a difficult month from becoming worse. But a business should not need family savings to bridge an unexplained hold on money it has already earned.

What I tried, and what was missing

I used the channels available to me: the account’s document-upload process, the appeal option, and my bank’s enquiry route. I saved each submission and checked the account repeatedly. None of those steps gave me a specific reason, a named stage of review, a reliable deadline, or a way to know whether a person had considered the evidence.

A request to “verify” an account may sound manageable. Without the particular concern, it becomes guesswork. I could submit more paperwork, but I could not know whether it addressed the issue. A payment hold may be necessary in some cases; an indefinite-feeling hold with no clear path to resolution transfers all the uncertainty to the business waiting for its money.

The Standard would not require a platform to accept every appeal or to disclose information that it must lawfully protect. It would require written notice with a specific reason, review by a person, and a time limit on payout holds. It would apply the same protections in every country where the platform operates. Those are practical safeguards. They let a business understand what it is being asked to answer, provide relevant records, and plan around a real deadline.

Why I support the Standard

I support the Standard because the gap I experienced was not simply that a decision went against me. It was that I could not understand the decision or the route to challenge it while my funds were unavailable. A clear reason might have let me correct a document promptly. A human review might have connected my submissions to the account issue. A time limit would have made it possible to know when the hold had to be reconsidered.

The Assembly adopted the Platform Fairness Standard on 13 August. Letters transmitting it went to seven chief executives on 20 August and were delivered between 24 and 26 August. As of today, no replies are on the record. I understand that Wave 2 seats for mid-sized platforms have been proposed. I support continuing that work. The protections should not depend on which platform a small business uses, or on which country it is in.

I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking that when access to an account or payout is restricted, the business receives enough information to respond and a fair process with an end point. My own records can show the 61 days. A better standard could help make sure another person does not have to spend those days guessing.