For Amazon vendors, the terms “re-opening” and “re-disputing” a claim might sound interchangeable. However, they are two distinct actions with different requirements and strategic implications, and misunderstanding the difference can lead to lost revenue.

Key Insights

• Re-Open vs. Re-Dispute: Re-open a recently denied dispute when you have additional information to provide that was missing from the original case. Re-dispute a denied claim when you have strong new evidence that directly challenges the reason for Amazon’s denial.
• Start with Data: The key to a successful dispute strategy lies in Amazon Vendor Analytics. Use PO, inventory, and remittance reports to choose the right path.
• Expertise Maximizes Recovery: The complexity of Amazon’s systems and strict timelines mean an automated, expert-led approach significantly improves recovery rates over in-house efforts alone.

Using Amazon Vendor Analytics

Amazon Vendor Analytics provides the crucial data needed to decide whether to re-open or re-dispute. By assessing shipment data, PO accuracy, and inventory reconciliation, you can build a stronger case.

A few examples of analytics to review include:

• Purchase Order (PO) Details Report: Confirm that the PO was fulfilled correctly and on time. If discrepancies exist, this supports a re-dispute against a denied claim.
• Inventory Ledger and Sell-In Reports: If your records show full delivery but Amazon’s ledger shows less, this discrepancy provides the core evidence for a re-dispute.
• Remittance and Dispute Management Reports: Identify patterns in denied claims to determine if new evidence (e.g., carrier proof of delivery) justifies re-opening a case that was closed due to missing information.

Knowing the Difference

This comparison chart highlights the key differences between re-opening and re-disputing a claim in Amazon Vendor Central.

Re-Opening a Dispute

Re-open a dispute when:

• You previously submitted a dispute, but it was closed without a final decision due to missing documentation, timing issues, or system errors.
• You now have the corrected documentation that wasn’t included in the original submission.
• The dispute was closed prematurely, and you believe it still warrants review.

Example: You submitted a shortage dispute but forgot to include the Proof of Delivery (POD). Amazon closed the case. You now have the POD and can re-open the same case to provide it.

Re-Disputing a Claim

Re-dispute when:

• Your original dispute was reviewed and rejected, and Amazon provided a reason for the denial.
• You believe the rejection was incorrect and have new evidence to challenge the decision.
• You have additional proof or clarification that directly addresses Amazon’s rejection reason.

Example: Amazon rejected your chargeback dispute, citing “non-compliant labeling.” You now have photos showing compliant labels and want to submit a new dispute for the same chargeback.

Critical Timelines

In each case, strict timelines apply:

• Shortage Disputes: Must be filed or re-disputed within 2 years of the invoice date. Claims older than 24 months for Amazon shortage claims are automatically rejected.
• Chargebacks: An initial dispute must be submitted within 30 days of the chargeback notification. To dispute Amazon Vendor chargebacks a second time, you must file within 30 days of the first refusal.

The biggest miss for Vendors is the method of disputing and the documentation used. They’re just throwing everything at Amazon and seeing what’s approved and what’s not approved, and doing that can definitely increase the risk to the health of the account.

The (Complex) Decision-Making Process

Several factors work against vendors when tracking and managing disputes:

• Opaque Systems: Amazon’s dispute interface lacks transparency and often auto-denies claims without clear reasoning.
• Strict Timelines: Missing a deadline, even by a day, can forfeit your right to dispute.
• Documentation Burden: Vendors must compile detailed evidence, often across multiple systems (ERP, logistics, carrier portals).
• Changing Rules: Amazon frequently updates its dispute logic without formal announcements, making it challenging to stay compliant.

Given these complexities, it’s clear why many vendors partner with an expert using deduction management software to improve recovery rates and reduce the operational strain on their internal teams.

What Our Partners Say

“Carbon6 has taken the frustration out of deductions resolution and equipped us with tools and insights to drive continuous improvement initiatives on the Amazon account.” – Sanofi | Global pharmaceutical company

“We’re in the process of collecting money from Amazon we wouldn’t otherwise have collected, as well as improving our internal processes in regards to our Amazon 1P business.” – Wildkin | Consumer Goods Company

Why Use an Automated, Expert-Led Solution?

While the benefits of an expert-led solution—improved recovery rates and reduced operational strain—are clear, many vendors hesitate due to concerns over cost and management oversight. See what your potential return could be with our Deduction Management ROI Calculator.

With a pay-for-performance model, those concerns are eliminated. Carbon6 Revenue Recovery operates with no fees unless we recover funds, taking only a percentage of the recovered amount. Our data-driven approach removes guesswork, maximizes financial returns, and makes Carbon6 an essential ally in protecting your bottom line.

Carbon6 takes on the complexity of Amazon dispute management so your in-house team doesn’t have to.

Real-World Results

Carbon6 combines retailer-specific automation and recovery expertise to manage deductions, disputes, and follow-ups, accelerating recovery while reducing the lift from your team.

Get started with your risk-free audit today.