A notice should tell us what to do next

Letter from the table

RC/PL/2026/T.21 · 20 March 2026

To the Platform Council,

I support the protections being discussed for PL-001. I am writing from Monterrey, but the experience I want to describe is not unusual here: a business depends on a large marketplace, and one short notice can leave its owner guessing whether the problem is a document, a payment, or a decision that has already been made.

On 29 January, I was expecting a payout of MXN 18,640. I had counted on it for ordinary business costs due that week. On 3 February, I found that my account had been restricted and the payout was on hold. The notification referred generally to a verification issue. It did not identify the transaction or document that needed attention, explain whether the restriction was temporary, or give a date by which I could expect an answer.

I did what I could think of. I checked the account details, prepared my SAT Constancia de Situación Fiscal and a bank statement showing the account in my name, and submitted them through the platform’s help process on 5 February. I also opened a support request. The response I received did not say which part of my submission was insufficient or what other evidence would settle the review. I sent a further request on 10 February and kept copies of the notices and submission confirmations.

There was a practical limit to what I could do outside the platform. In Mexico, a SPEI Comprobante Electrónico de Pago can help verify a transfer once a payment has been sent through SPEI. It cannot establish why a marketplace has not released a balance or whether it intends to send one. I could not use a transfer receipt to resolve a payout that had not reached my bank. I also considered whether PROFECO was the right place to ask for help, but consumer-protection routes are not a clear substitute for a

seller-side review when a business is using a platform to trade. I do not say that no remedy exists; I say that, as a small operator, I could not see a direct route to a decision on the account.

Meanwhile, the business obligations did not pause. I still had to keep records and plan around tax and supplier commitments, while not knowing whether the money would arrive or whether I could continue using the account. The amount was not a theoretical balance on a screen. It was money already earned and assigned to real expenses. I was careful not to promise a payment date to anyone until I knew more.

This is why I want the proposed standard to require a written notice with a specific reason, a review by a person, and a time limit on payout holds. These are modest protections. They would not prevent a platform from investigating fraud, correcting an error, or enforcing its terms. They would require it to tell the affected owner what issue is being examined, give a usable way to respond, and bring the matter to a decision rather than leaving it open without an endpoint.

A specific reason matters because “verification” can mean many things. If the problem is a mismatch in a bank detail, I can check it. If the issue is a document, I can provide a better copy. If the platform believes a particular transaction is improper, I need enough information to answer that concern. A general label gives me no meaningful next step.

Human review matters because documents and business circumstances do not always fit a standard form. A person can see that a name is presented differently across records, ask for the missing page, or explain why a document cannot be accepted. A time limit matters because a hold without an end date transfers the uncertainty entirely to the small business. If a review genuinely needs longer, the platform should say why and when it will update the owner.

I also support applying these protections in every country where a platform operates. The people using the service may face different laws and languages, but a seller should not lose basic notice and review merely because the account is based in Mexico rather than a larger market. Local institutions cannot be expected to resolve every private platform decision, and the platform itself is often the only place with the records needed to explain it.

Notes and sources

1. As of 20 March 2026, the Platform Council had counted 358 reports from 46 countries. ↩