A Letter from the Table: When the Payout Has No Date

To the Platform Council

I support the Platform Fairness Standard. I support it because a small business cannot plan around a message that says there is a problem but does not say what the problem is, who can review it, or when money already earned will be released.

I am writing from Mexico City, where I hear versions of this problem from owners around me. Their businesses are different. Their common position is not: they are all online sellers. It is that an account can be the route through which orders arrive and money moves, while the rules for getting help remain unclear.

On 12 June 2026, I found that I could no longer use my seller account. A notice said access had been restricted because of unusual activity. It did not identify a particular order, transaction, or document. The payout due to me was MXN 38,640. I had counted on that money for a supplier payment and routine expenses. The notice did not give me a date for release.

I did what I thought a reasonable person should do. I checked recent orders and delivery records. I sent the documents requested through the platform’s support process, including my tax registration information, CFDI invoices, and proof of dispatch. I opened a case and followed up through the available support channel. I also checked with my bank that there was no problem receiving a transfer. The bank could confirm its own account details; it could not tell me why the platform had stopped the payout.

For several days, I could not tell whether I was being asked to correct an error, supply a missing document, or wait for an investigation. I did not have a person reviewing the case whom I could contact. I had a case number and a series of requests to wait. On 24 June, access was restored. The MXN 38,640 was released on 2 July. I was relieved, but I was not given a specific explanation of what had triggered the restriction or what had resolved it.

The delay had a cost beyond the held amount. I had to ask a supplier to wait and rearrange payments that I had expected to make on time. I spent hours collecting records and checking for updates instead of doing ordinary work. Most of all, I had no way to distinguish a real, actionable concern from a system flag that might clear eventually. A business owner should not have to guess which one it is.

Mexico has institutions and rules that serve important purposes, but they do not fill this gap. The Federal Consumer Protection Law, including Article 76 Bis, addresses duties in electronic transactions between suppliers and consumers. PROFECO has a consumer-protection role. SAT administers tax matters, including CFDI invoicing. Those functions do not, by themselves, provide a clear, timely human appeal when a marketplace suspends a seller’s account or holds that seller’s payout. I could provide tax documents and delivery evidence, but I needed the platform to tell me what decision it had made and how I could challenge it.

This is why the Standard’s requirements matter together. Written notice should identify the decision. A specific reason should tell the owner what conduct or transaction is at issue, rather than leaving them to submit documents blindly. Review by a person should mean that someone can examine the information and correct a mistaken restriction. A time limit on payout holds should prevent money from becoming indefinitely unavailable while an account case sits unresolved. Applying the same protections in every country matters too. A business in Mexico should not have to accept less information or a weaker route to review simply because it is outside the platform’s home market.

There is a practical way to do this without preventing platforms from acting on genuine risks. Give notice as soon as it is safe to do so. Explain the reason in terms the owner can answer. Provide a channel to submit relevant evidence and have it considered by a person. State when a payout will be reviewed again, and give a reason if the hold must continue. These steps do not promise that every account will be restored. They make a restriction understandable and contestable.

I know the Council has adopted the Standard and sent it to seven chief executives on 20 August. As of today, there are no replies on record. I also understand that a second group of proposed seats is being prepared. I hope the Council continues that work, while keeping the standard

clear: letters and proposed seats are a route toward change, not proof that change has happened.

The Platform Council’s own records show that Mexico is among the countries with the most reports in this pattern. That number is not a measure of every seller’s experience, and I cannot speak for everyone. I can say that around me the uncertainty is familiar: money held, a generic notice, documents sent, and no reliable date for an answer.¹

Notes and sources

1. As of 29 September 2026, the Platform Council recorded 103 reports from Mexico. ↩