Amazon status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Amazon reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Amazon users through our website.

• Website Down (43%)
• Errors (33%)
• Sign in (24%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Amazon outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Islington	Errors	15 hours ago
Vienna	Sign in	2 days ago
Chicago	Errors	2 days ago
Honeoye Falls	Sign in	2 days ago
Helensburgh	Sign in	4 days ago
Annecy	Website Down	4 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Amazon Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  bhavesh shah (@bhaveshshah) reported 7 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp @JeffBezos Hi it still doesnt work .. even tagging @JeffBezos doesn’t seem to work for a simple return issue

• 
  Himanshu Priyadarshi (@HimanshuPr67294) reported 9 minutes ago

  @alohaproxy @marclou Amazon for softwares , I made it to solve the problem of finding business to sell websites and other softwares , here any developers can list their softwares and can sell through 2 channels : affiliate marketing or direct sell

• 
  mitrebox (@mitrebox) reported 9 minutes ago

  Various economic conditions, regulation, debt has broken up American companies into mostly sector bases. Amazon kind of an exception. In Asia, however there is little trust and the courts are slow. If you can't trust the system you need to grow, you become the system.

• 
  Akin Oríjà (@mapolami) reported 11 minutes ago

  Localization strategy - maybe they could have learned a thing or two about Amazon in China. Tiered Services - could have helped cater to different customer segments like Netflix does. As for the drivers who gamed the platform for immediate gains, this market exit has pulled down the entire house. We must always consider the big picture of our actions.

• 
  Jake Martin | Amazon Advertising 🛠 (@jake_rm_) reported 11 minutes ago

  Staying well-stocked is vital because delivery time is a huge driver of conversion rate and organic rank. If your inventory drops below what's needed to meet demand for a keyword in a specific location, Amazon will often lower your rank there and surface a competitor with a faster delivery time. Ads take the same hit, and it starts before you're actually out of stock. Let's say you have a popular variation item getting low in stock. The delivery date pushes out while the low stock ASIN is still live in your campaigns, getting impressions. The shopper sees a delivery date weeks away and scrolls. They would have no idea there's a variation on that page arriving next day. So you end up suppressing the ASIN by hand to stop it serving a bad delivery promise, then going back through the campaigns to switch it all on again weeks later. Low inventory lowers CTR, CVR, organic rank, AND bogs down your PPC operations. Do what you can to keep stock levels healthy!

• 
  two (@one2gloss) reported 15 minutes ago

  this is not a recall btw it just an amazon issue

• 
  Tril3 (@Tril36) reported 15 minutes ago

  @unusual_whales Easy fix. Cancel prime and order from Walmart. It will cost them more. @amazon

• 
  ℂ𝕠𝕕𝕖𝕩, ℍ𝕖𝕣𝕖 (@CodexHere) reported 17 minutes ago

  @azkadelya @amazon Amazon is terrible anymore. They do not care about their customers in the least bit... I know growing up people hated on Walmart because they hurt small businesses, but lately they've had the best customer service amongst every service I've ever used. it's crazy.

• 
  Raye (@rayemarkets) reported 19 minutes ago

  Every time Damodaran uploads a video, I always watch it because he usually takes a concept that sounds simple on the surface and then breaks down the incentives and economics underneath it, and this discussion on scaling versus profitability is a good example. The common startup narrative is that companies should grow as quickly as possible, capture market share, and worry about profits later, but Damodaran's argument is that this approach only works when the structure of the business actually supports it. A large addressable market and fast revenue growth can tell us how big a company might become, but they tell us very little about how valuable that company will eventually be unless growth can translate into better unit economics, operating leverage, pricing power, and returns on invested capital. A company can therefore become much larger without becoming economically stronger, and in some cases scaling simply multiplies the weaknesses that were already embedded in the original business model. This is why the distinction between scalability and business quality is so important. Software businesses can often add customers at very low marginal cost, meaning revenue can grow much faster than the underlying cost base, while businesses involving manufacturing, logistics, physical infrastructure, or expensive customer acquisition may require significant incremental spending for every additional dollar of revenue. Even within technology, being asset-light does not automatically solve the problem because customer acquisition costs, incentives, cloud infrastructure, research spending, and competition can effectively become variable costs that rise alongside growth. Scale only creates meaningful operating leverage when the incremental economics improve as the company gets larger, and if costs continue rising roughly in line with revenue, the company may eventually discover that what looked like a temporary profitability problem was actually structural. Amazon is therefore an important example, but also a dangerous template for other startups to copy. Amazon could tolerate years of weak accounting profitability because its scale was gradually building infrastructure, distribution density, customer relationships, marketplace liquidity, and purchasing power that improved the economics of the business over time, so the losses were connected to assets and competitive advantages that eventually supported much greater profitability. The mistake is assuming that every company reporting losses while growing quickly is following the same path, because some businesses are simply using investor capital to subsidize prices, acquire customers, or enter markets without creating corresponding economic advantages. Both companies can initially show the same headline numbers of rapid revenue growth and negative earnings, but one may be accumulating future operating leverage while the other is accumulating obligations that require continuous external capital. Damodaran's "Field of Dreams" can become a "Field of Nightmares" precisely when investors assume profitability will automatically appear once sufficient scale has been reached. The venture capital structure makes this problem more interesting because the incentives of the investor and the economics of the underlying company are not necessarily aligned. Venture portfolios depend heavily on a relatively small number of very large winners, which means a venture capitalist may rationally prefer a founder to pursue a much larger and riskier outcome rather than build a smaller company producing steady profits. A company that could become a profitable business worth a few hundred million dollars may be economically attractive to its founder, employees, and customers, but it might barely move the returns of a multibillion-dollar venture fund, while turning that same company into a speculative attempt at a ten-billion-dollar outcome provides much more upside to the fund. Scaling therefore becomes partly a consequence of portfolio mathematics rather than purely a consequence of what is optimal for the company itself, which helps explain why startups are frequently encouraged to expand geographically, add products, increase hiring, and raise increasingly large funding rounds even before the economics of the original business have been fully proven. Damodaran's point about pricing versus valuation extends this incentive further. Private markets frequently anchor financing rounds around comparable transactions, revenue multiples, user growth, subscribers, or projected future revenue rather than the present value of sustainable future cash flows, so scale itself becomes an input into the next financing round. Once that happens, raising capital can create a self-reinforcing cycle where capital funds growth, growth supports a higher private-market price, the higher price enables another larger funding round, and that new capital funds even more growth. During favorable capital-market conditions this cycle can continue for years, making it difficult to distinguish between a genuinely improving business and a company whose growth is partly being manufactured by increasingly abundant financing. The real test only arrives when the marginal investor becomes less willing to finance losses and the company has to demonstrate that customers, margins, and cash generation can support the business without constant capital injections. The expansion of private capital has allowed this process to continue much further than it could several decades ago. Companies historically reached public markets relatively early because public equity was one of the few ways to obtain the capital required for large-scale expansion, whereas mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, private equity firms, crossover investors, and very large venture funds can now provide billions of dollars while companies remain private. Damodaran describes this as the creation of a gray market between traditional venture capital and public equity, and one consequence is that startups can reach enormous revenue bases and valuations before facing the level of disclosure, governance scrutiny, and profitability expectations traditionally associated with public companies. His data also show how much this has changed the profile of companies reaching the public market, with companies generally arriving larger in revenue terms but substantially less likely to be profitable than companies going public several decades ago. There is also a governance dimension that becomes increasingly important as companies scale privately. A founder managing a small startup and a founder controlling an organization worth tens or hundreds of billions of dollars are effectively running very different institutions, yet rapid private-market scaling can allow the governance structure of the first company to survive into the second. Founder control, dual-class shares, fragmented investor bases, and competition among venture investors can weaken the normal mechanisms that challenge management decisions, while large valuations can reinforce the belief that the founder's strategy has already been validated. The danger is that valuation growth can substitute for operational accountability during the scaling phase, and by the time profitability, capital allocation, organizational complexity, or governance problems become visible, the company may already employ thousands of people and control significant amounts of capital. Another part of Damodaran's argument that I find important is that staying small should not automatically be interpreted as failure. Some businesses naturally have better economics when they remain concentrated around a specific customer base, product category, geography, or brand position, because expanding beyond that niche can weaken pricing power or require disproportionately higher capital and marketing spending. Ferrari is an obvious example of a company whose economics partly depend on scarcity, but the principle applies much more widely: maximizing revenue is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing enterprise value. A business generating high returns on capital within a limited market can be economically superior to a much larger competitor producing weak returns after enormous capital investment, which means the correct objective should ultimately be value creation rather than size itself. Personally, this is where I agree strongly with Damodaran, because I do not see profitability and growth as opposite objectives in the first place. A company should absolutely sacrifice near-term profits when it has opportunities to reinvest capital at attractive returns, especially when that spending strengthens distribution, technology, network effects, customer retention, infrastructure, or another durable competitive advantage, but there needs to be a credible economic mechanism connecting today's spending with tomorrow's cash generation. I care much less about whether a rapidly growing company currently reports a profit than about what happens to the economics of the next dollar of revenue, because improving contribution margins, lower acquisition costs, stronger retention, greater pricing power, and falling capital requirements provide evidence that scale is actually making the business better. This also makes the discussion extremely relevant to the current artificial intelligence cycle. Artificial intelligence companies are being pushed to scale models, computing infrastructure, data centers, users, enterprise distribution, and revenue extraordinarily quickly, while the capital required to support that expansion is also becoming enormous. Some of that spending could eventually create exceptional businesses if inference economics improve, utilization rises, customers become deeply embedded in the products, and artificial intelligence generates enough willingness to pay to produce strong margins, but scale alone cannot prove that outcome. If computing costs and capital requirements continue rising alongside usage, then very fast revenue growth could coexist with mediocre returns on capital, particularly when companies must continuously finance new generations of chips and infrastructure simply to remain technologically competitive. For me, the most important question in artificial intelligence therefore is gradually shifting from how fast these companies can grow to how much economic value remains after paying for the infrastructure required to generate that growth, because eventually the market has to separate companies that are using capital to build durable operating leverage from companies that simply need ever larger amounts of capital to keep the scaling story alive.

• 
  Gentrified Hoodrat (@talismonk) reported 24 minutes ago

  @OwenBenjamin amazon has spent more money on programming robot tuggers than on the salary of the human team. its batshit stupit. the robot tuggers are slow af, slowing down the whole operation. they will do anything but pay people more. suffer the operation even just to pretend ai is great

• 
  Steve Cavalier (@Drstevecavalier) reported 27 minutes ago

  HEAD IMPULSE NYSTAGMUS TEST OF SKEW (HINTS) The HINTS is used at the bedside to help differentiate a peripheral cause of vertigo, such as vestibular neuritis, from a central cause, such as cerebellar stroke. 1.Head impulse – the patient fixates on the examiner’s nose. The examiner turns the patient’s head side to side a few times, then stops. If the patient’s eyes remain fixed, the test is negative. If a “catch-up” eye movement is required, the test is positive, indicating a peripheral disorder.  2.Nystagmus refers to rhythmic, jerky, involuntary eye movements. If the patient has unidirectional (to one side) nystagmus, even with a slight torsional component, this suggests a peripheral disorder. Nystagmus that is bidirectional, vertical, or primarily torsional indicates a central problem, such as a stroke.  3.Test for skew – when the eyes are alternately covered and uncovered while the patient fixes on one point, a vertical repositioning is called skew. The presence of skew indicates a central abnormality. HINTS performed by an experienced examiner is considered highly reliable in differentiating central from peripheral causes of acute vertigo. You can read more about this and many other aspects of vertigo in the new book “Vertigo and dizziness: A No-Nonsense Approach,” now available on Amazon.

• 
  . (@coldblackwaters) reported 28 minutes ago

  Amazon Fire kids tablets are terrible. I’ll just get my kid an iPad instead.

• 
  dgaf_dizzle (@HasanFarazDada) reported 31 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp The problem has not been resolved, no one has called me back and i am being sent around in circles. I am shocked by how bad the customer service is and hope this reached a wider audience.

• 
  leelakurup (@leelakurup) reported 32 minutes ago

  @Tukaram_IndIAS Sir what about companies do not deliver items prepaid and show on line its delivered. Amazon delivery is doing it off late. Then call them convince them item not delivered. Big problem. Any remedy??

• 
  danny b.gohain (@dannygohain) reported 33 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Just solve my issue i have been transferred to 20 agents as of now this is absurd pathetic customer support @amazonIN

• 
  Badgers4life48! (@badgers4ever48) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Vikeologist I don’t mind paying to watch my teams however I do have an issue when I need. Netflix YouTubeTv Peacock Amazon just to watch the NFL and I am lucky and live where I get the packers but that’s another $235 bucks for Sunday ticket if I didn’t It’s making it hard to watch on sport

• 
  Further Records (@furtherrecords) reported 37 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux ChatGPT Work took over a live Amazon Seller Support chat over $82.50, then stopped monitoring despite explicit instructions. The chat expired. A fresh Work browser now blocks Seller Central, with no ETA or workaround. It caused the failure, then removed the way to fix

• 
  Dawso (@jensuedaw) reported 38 minutes ago

  @SuisKirk33160 @omgsidewalks Guess you need to have a shared sense of humanity, a sense of common decency to think people matter. As a self-funded retiree, l ask nothing from 'working class folks' but when Amazon workers need food stamps, the US has a problem.

• 
  two (@one2gloss) reported 38 minutes ago

  @_2skinny its not a recall its just an amazon issue

• 
  Sidhant Singh Lalla (@sidlalla1) reported 40 minutes ago

  @PointsPro @man1sh_golcha Same. Counting down with gritted teeth on amazon pay and cred txns.

• 
  Jonathan Smith (@DegenerateTBone) reported 42 minutes ago

  As some of you have pointed out, one option is to get the free Amazon Prime account and then pay for the Jackets subscription. Still a massive downgrade from the (terrible) FanDuel TV deal, where the same price got both the Jackets and the Cavs. Now, $19.99/ month per team.

• 
  Anthony Cingle (@AnthonyCingle) reported 47 minutes ago

  @Schlage_Locks @Schlage_Locks Two defective Encode Plus locks from Amazon: one bad locking mechanism, one dead keypad. Bought a third from Lowe’s and it worked perfectly with completely different packaging. Is there an issue with Amazon inventory?

• 
  A. (@esqinhiding) reported 51 minutes ago

  @_kingrosier people say Away is good. and Beis. or my brand that i got my amazon that haven’t broken at all lol

• 
  Marcus Cruz (@Marcus8214) reported 51 minutes ago

  @rauliscoolyo @salinisalazini Problem is that there is 30 nationally televised games. So you still need ESPN, NBC and Amazon Prime.

• 
  STR8BGN (@StraightBugging) reported 53 minutes ago

  @Variety Energetic my ***. Horrible acting and terrible plot. It's like speed, but she's running. Amazon Studios strikes out again.

• 
  Deborah Daniels Ⓥ (@DeborahHD) reported 54 minutes ago

  @AFCBOldgit @amazon Same issues in Queens Park.

• 
  🤖 (@artificialfries) reported 56 minutes ago

  @ebloch I’ve been using it to track all of my subscription spending via App Store subscriptions and real time subscriptions irl such as Amazon prime, etc. didn’t realize I was spending so much!! I’m now using it to analyze and cut down on some of my biggest waste spending

• 
  Humberto (@patife) reported 57 minutes ago

  @ericwdolan Sure I meant more that things get transformed! Postal services were about letters, os they move parcels/ amazon boxes. Email service was about .. email, now they’re about identity/ login.

• 
  It Happens (@NeedsSaidoften) reported 59 minutes ago

  So @amazon when your over seas call center promises credits and send email confirmation, its not legal to say well they shouldn't have. Your company is broken to consumers

• 
  Paradis (@ParadisLabs) reported 1 hour ago

  Bought some stocks today...finally. 1. $NBIS - Already a top 10 position for me, but one of my highest conviction names. 2. $INTC - I don't own enough Intel. 3. $CRDO - Averaging my position down on this earnings drop (I personally think earnings were good). I started my Credo position on last quarter's earnings drop. 4. $BE - We all know the bottleneck by now... 5. $AMZN - Can never own enough Amazon. Nearly 10% down in a month is a treat (imo). I don't care about day-to-day fluctuations w/ Amazon since I'll be a shareholder for a *very* long time. If you've been reading my macro notes recently, you'd note that I've been holding cash (and buying some hedges like "defensive tech" AKA software). But it got to a point today where I just couldn't resist buying some discounted names for my core AI portfolio. This is obviously NFA - as per my macro note earlier, I think that semis still have room to go lower (war = bad narrative). I personally have enough cash / hedges to unwind - to buy more semis on additional drops...idk if you do which is why this is never individual advice.