Letter from the table: A hold needs a clock

Letter from the table

To the Platform Council,

I support the proposed fix. I oppose the practice it is meant to change: stopping a small business’s access to its account or money without a specific reason, a real person to review the case, and a clear end point. A notice that merely says “we are reviewing your account” is not enough to plan around.

On 11 March 2026, a large marketplace restricted my account and held ¥186,400 in proceeds. The notice arrived in the account dashboard. It did not say which transaction or activity had triggered the restriction, what information would answer the concern, or when the money would be reviewed. I could still see the balance, but I could not transfer it. I will not describe my business or what it sells; the important fact is that this was money already earned and needed for ordinary expenses.

I tried the steps available to me. On 12 March, I submitted the identity and transaction documents requested in the account form. On 15 March, I opened a support case and asked two questions: what specific issue was under review, and when would the hold be reconsidered? I received a case number, but no usable answer to either question. On 22 March, I submitted the same information through the appeal form. On 3 April, ¥71,600 was released. The remaining ¥114,800 was still held on 1 May, with no stated review date.

The practical cost was not only the amount withheld. I had to decide which bills to delay without knowing whether the remaining money would be available the next week or the next month. I spent time resending documents instead of doing paid work. I could not tell whether the first submission had been read, whether the appeal had reached a person, or whether the balance was being held for one issue or several. A seller cannot correct a problem that has not been identified.

Japan already has a framework relevant to this discussion. The Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms requires designated providers to disclose information about their terms and operations, including conditions related to withholding payments. METI administers the framework. That kind of disclosure matters, but a published policy is not the same thing as a case-specific reason, an individual review, or a deadline for resolving a hold. A rule can be visible on a website and still leave a person facing an unexplained balance in their account.

I would make the Standard straightforward to implement. Each platform should use a written notice template that states, in plain language:

• what action is being considered and when it will take effect;
• the specific conduct, transaction, or requirement at issue, without exposing another user’s private information;
• what documents or steps could resolve the concern, and how to submit them;
• the date by which a person will review the response; and
• the date the payout hold will end or be reviewed again.

The notice should be delivered through the account and by email, with a copy the member can save. A case number should follow the matter through support, appeal, and review; a seller should not have to start again each time a different team receives it. If the platform needs more information, it should say what is missing rather than send a generic request to upload documents again. If only part of a balance is in question, the undisputed part should not be swept into the hold.

For the human review, the platform could set a short, published service deadline and show its status: received, assigned, awaiting information, or decided. A review should be by a person with authority to change the decision, not simply a new route back to the same automated notice. The hold should have a maximum period, with a written explanation and a fresh review required before it can continue. The same basic protections should apply in every country where the platform operates, with notices translated well enough for the member to act on them.

I am not asking the Council to decide that every restriction is wrong. Platforms need to address genuine risks. I am asking that a small business be told what the issue is, be given a usable way to answer, and not be left without a timetable. That is a workable process, not a special favour. The Platform Council is gathering evidence now, and the reports already counted make clear that these events are not just a private inconvenience.¹

Notes and sources

1. As of 1 May 2026, the Platform Council had counted 847 reports from 50 countries. ↩

Sources

1. Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms (English translation)
2. METI: Digital Platforms