The reserve I had to become

Letter from the table

Translated from Spanish by the Secretariat.

To the Platform Council,

I write from Córdoba in favour of the Platform Fairness Standard, but with an amendment. My experience has been that a small business can learn to live around uncertainty. That does not make the uncertainty fair, and it should not be mistaken for a solution.

On 18 February 2026, I received notice that access to my account had been restricted while a review was under way. The notice did not identify a particular transaction or explain what information was needed. At the same time, a payout of ARS 2,480,000 was held. That money was not a number on a screen to me. It was part of the cash I had set aside for the next cycle of operating expenses.

I tried the steps available to me. I checked the account details again, gathered the documents I thought might be relevant, and submitted them through the platform’s appeal channel on 20 February. I also contacted support to ask what specific issue I should address. I received confirmation that the request had been received, but not an explanation that let me correct anything. On 26 February I sent a further request, this time keeping a dated record of the documents submitted and of each contact. I did not receive a clear timetable for the review or for release of the payout.

Meanwhile, the obligations at home did not pause. I had to plan invoices through the national tax agency, ARCA, and keep up with provincial obligations in Córdoba. I could ask for more time from some people I worked with, but that meant asking them to carry a delay that was not theirs. I was uncomfortable doing that. I also did not want to borrow at a cost I could not justify when I did not know whether the held funds would arrive in days or weeks.

What I tried next was less a business strategy than a way to reduce the damage if it happened again. I began reconciling platform balances against my own records more frequently. I separated money needed for near-term expenses from money I could safely leave in the platform balance. I kept copies of notices and support requests outside the account, and made a simple timeline for myself. I also began to hold a larger cash reserve, even though that meant delaying other plans. These measures helped me see my exposure sooner. They did not give me the information or control that the platform had withheld.

This is why I support the draft’s basic protections: written notice, a specific reason, review by a person, and a time limit on payout holds, with the same protections across countries. A notice should tell a business what action has been taken and what it can do next. A human review should be more than a second, unexplained step in an automated process. And a deadline matters because a small business has to plan against dates, not assurances that a matter is being looked at.

I ask the Council to amend the draft in two practical ways. First, require the notice to identify the affected account action, the reason in terms the business can understand, the information needed to respond, and a channel that actually accepts that response. Where automated tools contributed to the decision, say so. If a review is still pending, provide a date by which the business will receive an update, even if the final decision cannot yet be made.

Second, make the payout time limit clear about when the clock starts, how the business can challenge a continued hold, and what happens when the limit expires. There may be exceptional cases where a temporary hold is necessary. But “exceptional” should not mean indefinite, and it should not remove the duty to explain the hold or review it. If additional time is required, the platform should give a reason and a new date, rather than leave the business to guess.

I am not asking the Council to promise that every account will remain active or every payout will be released immediately. I am asking for a process that lets a business understand the problem, answer it, and make plans while it is being resolved. Those are modest protections when set against the consequences of an unexplained restriction.