For the Recovery of Lost Trust: Excel Plan Co., Ltd. (Kobe City) and Try & E Co., Ltd. (Kobe City) File Lawsuit Against Amazon Japan in Kobe District Court on April 7, 2026, for Violation of Obligation to Delete Fraudulent Reviews, Citing Negligence in Managing Counterfeit Product Reviews
Excel Plan Co., Ltd. and Try & E Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Amazon Japan in Kobe District Court on April 7, 2026. The lawsuit claims that Amazon's failure to remove reviews for counterfeit products, which were listed via "piggyback selling," caused reputational damage to legitimate products. Key issues include whether Amazon's "Limitation of Liability" clause is an unfair term under the revised Civil Code and Amazon's alleged violation of its duty to delete fraudulent reviews based on its obligation to maintain an appropriate platform.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 8, 2026 at 19:32
- 🔍 Collected: April 8, 2026 at 11:00
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 21, 2026 at 03:29 (304h 29m after Collected)
To all concerned parties,
Since August 2021, Try & E Co. has been selling pulse oximeters on Amazon. However, Chinese sellers have been "piggyback listing" counterfeit versions of these products. Negative reviews left by purchasers of these counterfeit items are being aggregated with the reviews of genuine products on Amazon's system, leading to reputational damage. We requested Amazon to remove these reviews, but Amazon did not respond, leading us to take legal action as described below. We sincerely apologize for the great inconvenience caused to our customers who have favored our products and those considering future purchases.
1. Background and Overview of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit primarily disputes whether "Article 8: Limitation of Liability" within the "Amazon Business Solutions Agreement" provided by Amazon Japan G.K. (hereinafter, Amazon) falls under the "Unfair Clause for Standard Terms and Conditions (Article 548-2, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Civil Code)" enforced in April 2020.
Our company received a judgment from the Tokyo District Court (Reiwa 4 (Wa) No. 24415) on April 25, Reiwa 7 (2025), which partially acknowledged our claims and has generated significant attention. However, we have appealed to the Tokyo High Court for the parts not acknowledged and are currently awaiting the High Court's decision.
This current case seeks damages for Amazon's violation of its "obligation to delete fraudulent reviews based on the obligation to build an appropriate platform," as indicated in the District Court's judgment.
2. Points of Contention in this Lawsuit
In the appeal trial, Amazon is asserting that it bears no liability for damages based on General Provision 8, Limitation of Liability, in the Business Solutions Agreement.
[Point of Contention: Limitation of Liability (Summary)]
"Amazon will not be liable for any loss of profits, revenue, business, or data, or for punitive or indirect damages arising from or related to this agreement, regardless of whether Amazon was aware of the possibility of such damages. Furthermore, Amazon's total liability will be capped at the total amount paid by the user in the past 6 months, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct."
This lawsuit deeply questions whether such a clause, which allows for a unilateral exemption of liability on the platform's part, constitutes an "unfair clause" that unjustly harms the interests of users.
3. The Reality of Reputational Damage Caused by the "Piggyback Listing" System
Amazon's e-commerce shopping site adopts a "piggyback listing style" (one product per page). This system aggregates sellers offering the same products as those registered in Amazon's product catalog onto a single page, displaying them as a prioritized list. When "piggyback sellers" include those selling products different from the product page or counterfeit items, and purchasers of these counterfeit products leave customer reviews, these inappropriate low reviews are also aggregated with the reviews of genuine products. This case alleges that reputational damage occurred because Amazon continued to neglect requests to delete such fraudulent reviews.
In other e-commerce shopping sites, even if different products or counterfeit genuine products are sold, reviews are tied to the products sold by those specific sellers. However, Amazon's piggyback listing system aggregates all reviews, extending reputational damage even to sellers of genuine products and manufacturers of genuine products.
Since August 2021, Try & E Co. has been selling pulse oximeters on Amazon. However, Chinese sellers have been "piggyback listing" counterfeit versions of these products. Negative reviews left by purchasers of these counterfeit items are being aggregated with the reviews of genuine products on Amazon's system, leading to reputational damage. We requested Amazon to remove these reviews, but Amazon did not respond, leading us to take legal action as described below. We sincerely apologize for the great inconvenience caused to our customers who have favored our products and those considering future purchases.
1. Background and Overview of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit primarily disputes whether "Article 8: Limitation of Liability" within the "Amazon Business Solutions Agreement" provided by Amazon Japan G.K. (hereinafter, Amazon) falls under the "Unfair Clause for Standard Terms and Conditions (Article 548-2, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Civil Code)" enforced in April 2020.
Our company received a judgment from the Tokyo District Court (Reiwa 4 (Wa) No. 24415) on April 25, Reiwa 7 (2025), which partially acknowledged our claims and has generated significant attention. However, we have appealed to the Tokyo High Court for the parts not acknowledged and are currently awaiting the High Court's decision.
This current case seeks damages for Amazon's violation of its "obligation to delete fraudulent reviews based on the obligation to build an appropriate platform," as indicated in the District Court's judgment.
2. Points of Contention in this Lawsuit
In the appeal trial, Amazon is asserting that it bears no liability for damages based on General Provision 8, Limitation of Liability, in the Business Solutions Agreement.
[Point of Contention: Limitation of Liability (Summary)]
"Amazon will not be liable for any loss of profits, revenue, business, or data, or for punitive or indirect damages arising from or related to this agreement, regardless of whether Amazon was aware of the possibility of such damages. Furthermore, Amazon's total liability will be capped at the total amount paid by the user in the past 6 months, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct."
This lawsuit deeply questions whether such a clause, which allows for a unilateral exemption of liability on the platform's part, constitutes an "unfair clause" that unjustly harms the interests of users.
3. The Reality of Reputational Damage Caused by the "Piggyback Listing" System
Amazon's e-commerce shopping site adopts a "piggyback listing style" (one product per page). This system aggregates sellers offering the same products as those registered in Amazon's product catalog onto a single page, displaying them as a prioritized list. When "piggyback sellers" include those selling products different from the product page or counterfeit items, and purchasers of these counterfeit products leave customer reviews, these inappropriate low reviews are also aggregated with the reviews of genuine products. This case alleges that reputational damage occurred because Amazon continued to neglect requests to delete such fraudulent reviews.
In other e-commerce shopping sites, even if different products or counterfeit genuine products are sold, reviews are tied to the products sold by those specific sellers. However, Amazon's piggyback listing system aggregates all reviews, extending reputational damage even to sellers of genuine products and manufacturers of genuine products.