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 (45%)
• Errors (32%)
• Sign in (24%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Website Down	18 hours ago
Guadalajara	Errors	1 day ago
New York City	Website Down	1 day ago
Pozza di Fassa	Website Down	2 days ago
Bristol	Website Down	2 days ago
Paris	Website Down	2 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:

• 
  PayDirt Deals (@PayDirtDeals) reported 2 minutes ago

  Pattern 1: the uniform batch error. One wrong price stamped across a whole SKU batch. The tell: identical odd prices on unrelated products. Lifespan: hours, same-day. In 2019 Amazon listed a $13,000 lens at $94.48 — orders shipped.

• 
  RK (@RonyKokeza1) reported 5 minutes ago

  @notzeeunaliver @hayasaka_aryan @JamesGunn Bro. You know they gonna take this movie out of HBO MAX. Because financy problems. Is going to Amazon prime for sale and rent.

• 
  DigitalAssetsUS 🇺🇸🫡🏝️ (@DigitalAssetsUS) reported 5 minutes ago

  Oh No! With summons be careful as if you go out of range, meaning the car is going away from you down a long parking lot it could cause you to have to walk to it to get closer. It will sit wherever it was with the orange warning flasher lights on. Here’s a video of my experience with it I point out what happened and give you recommendation how to avoid it, which is basically think about where you parked and try to park where your vehicle can pull out and come towards you and not away from you It does wonderful going away from you and coming to you but if it’s more than 250 feet it will fail and also sevens does not work going across highways and roads only in parking lots and private areas Also demonstrated is a use case for a fridge in your Tesla On Amazon, you can get one for $319 only! Search fridge in my posts

• 
  Georgia Deplorable 🇺🇸 (@Schnowzerz) reported 7 minutes ago

  @amazon your delivery service has gotten terrible. I can never expect a package on time. I have more success with @walmart delivery. You have gall to charge for Prime. It’s substandard.

• 
  Dennis J (@DennisJ828144) reported 7 minutes ago

  @BowTiedBroke It’s a huge problem Amazon better wake ******** up @amazon

• 
  George 👣 Sovereign Individual (@SovereignLatam) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Rodrigo36732242 Safe zones makes it sound like only small parts are safe and the majority is very dangerous. That just isn't true. All of the Andes and most of the Amazon regions are safe compared to other major latam cities. The Galapagos is the safest place in latam. The coast is the main issue, but it isn't all bad.

• 
  Zhen (@zhen_do_ob) reported 11 minutes ago

  The meta pattern that hasn’t changed over multiple cycles between US and China is actually a 🪃: 1) 🇺🇸 0->1 true creative innovation. Examples: YouTube, Pinterest, Uber, ChatGPT, Atlas/Tesla/Figure humanoids 2) 🇨🇳 1->100 stand on shoulders of US innovation and polish down on cost. Examples: ByteDance, Rednote, Meituan, Deepseek and other models, Unitree etc. 3) 🇺🇸 100->100000000 resell back to US to try to enter a more lucrative market. Examples: TikTok, DoorDash (learned from Meituan), Enterprise AI companies like Harvey fine tuning off of Kimi etc., Unitree robots In short, US and China are largely interdependent when it comes to technology. AI is not really different except for the dual use nature and national security concerns. The workaround is obviously to segregate the uses and organizationally ringfence commercial vs public sector like what AWS does. Startups don’t really get this and cry about things but more mature generational tech companies (Apple, Nvidia, Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon) and many others find a way to thread the needle. It’s at the heart of American capitalism.

• 
  Princess 👑 Brooke 💞 (@goddessbrooke_f) reported 12 minutes ago

  My issue with an Amazon wishlist is it gives them 30 minutes to regret their decision even though they shouldn’t

• 
  RockNRedNeck77 (@RockNRedneck77) reported 14 minutes ago

  @maxxTFSA Is Amazon a web service company or a subscription company? People who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, is their own problem.

• 
  Constitutional Crusade LLC (@Constitutioncru) reported 17 minutes ago

  @JMichaelsonUT @midwestern_ope No imposition at all. So the longer story behind the name change was the investor was trying to figure out how to market to increase how many online new customers there were. Schwans had the looming problem of most of their customer base was over 50. Something like 75%. I think it was 45% over 65 but I can’t recall exactly. So he sent out a bunch of people to door knock non customers and get a read on if they’d heard of Schwans before and if they’d have any interest in signing up and why/why not. If they couldn’t figure out how to get younger people to sign up the company had 10-15 years left at most before most of their customers died with no replacements. Question 1 was “have you ever heard of or ordered Schwans before?” and the response was almost always something along the lines of “what’s that?” The door knocker would then explain what Schwans is and, most of the time, as soon as the bright yellow truck was mentioned the people would say “Oh, yeah I know that truck! I’ve seen it before.” Or “Oh, that’s you guys?!” Or “Oh I know who you are now!”. It was something staggering like 80% of the time. Don’t quote me on that percentage but it was significantly higher than half. So in follow up questions the door knockers found that about 25% of those people had tried googling it to sign up or learn more and couldn’t find it because they couldn’t remember or didn’t know the name of the company. Most of them said they tried searching “yellow delivery truck” and some figured it out eventually and some didn’t. So the investor did some more polling and studies to see if changing the name to something about the color yellow or the yellow truck would theoretically increase new customer signups. All the data suggested yes by a lot. Since the name Yellow was already trademarked by the (now also defunct) semi trucking company, he decided on “Yelloh!” Thinking it would improve new customer signups because it would be easy to google if you just saw the truck randomly driving past you. He did more polling and young people seemed to like it a lot. What he failed to do was poll the current customer base. He assumed that if the only thing that was changing was the name and nothing else was going to be any different, basically all current customers would be fine with it. He assumed customers cared almost exclusively about the food quality and figured since nothing about the food quality or options were changing they’d barely notice or care. He had no idea just how finicky Schwan’s customers are. If he had just polled drivers we would have immediately told him that, but he had no idea just how much Schwan’s customers hate change. By the time the rollout started the damage was done and there was no saving it. The same holds true for the switch to more online ordering and Amazon style delivery. All of these changes were an attempt to bring the company into the modern era because if they didn’t the company would eventually go under. Their mistake was waiting too long to start modernizing and then trying to force it because they felt like they had to play catchup. They refused to change and adapt with technology to gain the young generation until it was almost too late. Then, instead of introducing the online features and marketing them to current customers as convenience options, they tried to force it on customers that had no desire to change the way they’d been ordering for decades. This turned a lot of people off and ultimately sped up the decline instead of reversing it.

• 
  Amazon Help (@AmazonHelp) reported 19 minutes ago

  @ChrisConte79 @ChrisConte79 We're sorry to hear there's an issue with your order! Just to clarify, which Amazon marketplace is your account associated with (.com, .uk, .ca, etc.)? -Sandra

• 
  Mugi (@reMugi3) reported 20 minutes ago

  AMAZON LEAKED JASON STATHAM’S ENTIRE MOVIE Jason Statham’s Mutiny hits theaters today - but Amazon accidentally released the entire 95-minute film on Prime Video two days early. It was quickly removed, but full copies had already spread online. Years ago, Statham revealed the secret behind his brutally realistic fight scenes: “We’re not actually hitting each other.” “You have to really know how to throw a punch.” He then demonstrated the technique by punching Jimmy Kimmel in slow motion. The fights were fake. The leak was painfully real.

• 
  Amazon Help (@AmazonHelp) reported 25 minutes ago

  @fuckit_imgood Hello! We're sorry if you're experiencing an issue with a return. Without sharing personal account details, will you tell us more about what's going on with your return? To ensure we provide the best help, which Amazon marketplace (.com, .uk, .ca, .in, etc.) is your account associated with? -Jane

• 
  The Anonymous Alcoholic (@BalzakInc) reported 27 minutes ago

  @amazon Do you like screwing customers over? I sent a product back and you received it three weeks ago. I have waited for my refund. It took so long I called Amazon. I have been getting the runaround for four days. I was issued a refund today but then it was revoked. You claim you didn't receive the product even though you acknowledged receiving the product THREE WEEKS AGO. You issue a refund then revoke it. You're not scamming me! You will not receive the money! It was on a payment plan that I suspected and I will not pay.

• 
  The Anonymous Alcoholic (@BalzakInc) reported 30 minutes ago

  @amazon Amazon likes to try to scam people. I returned a product that was falsey advertised on Amazon. Amazon acknowledges receiving the product three weeks ago. They refused to issue me my refund claiming they didn't receive the product even though they acknowledged receiving it three weeks ago. I was told I was issued the refund today and received an email verifying that. A little while later I received an email stating my refund was not issued because Amazon did not receive the product yet Amazon literally acknowledged receiving the product three weeks ago.

• 
  Sean (@SeanGonzalez96) reported 33 minutes ago

  @rossiadam @BowTiedBroke Yes, but it no longer matters. They no longer have competition that can compete on price (free shipping). Stores have consolidated and reduced inventory to account for Amazon volume, and it's far more expensive to order razors delivered from anywhere else due to shipping costs. They're a warehousing, distribution and delivery company with a fancy website. Not primarily a store that solves logistics problems to deliver fast and cheap. Commingling the same SKU from different sellers cuts their costs more than keeping them separate increases sales. Some large accounts force them to make exceptions, but those large accounts WANT to sell on Amazon to increase market share, Amazon doesn't need all of of them. Amazon COULD remain a high quality retailer, but it would come at the cost of profits. Profits they can maximize by screwing customers with counterfeit Chinese crap. They'll run the models and fight as much of it as necessary to maximize profits, not to eliminate it and be a top retailer. They'll compete with Walmart and UPS at the same time. If you want authentic products ALL the time, you'll just pay $10 in shipping and wait 4 days for delivery, ordering less often with larger orders (helping you save money with fewer late night impulse purchases too).

• 
  Kyle Lamb (@kylamb8) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Gus7143 @ChristinaPushaw Well I appreciate the sentiment of working with domestic manufacturers but the problem is most of the tech giants that are U.S. companies are still operating in and with China. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Equinix, Nvidia, Oracle, Meta, Digital Realty, etc.

• 
  Jaby Chilcott (@JabyChilcott) reported 33 minutes ago

  @spencerpratt I'm gonna be ill after typing this, but AOC and Gavin are right IMO to fight against/deny tax credits (Amazon amd Netflix). The money govts are spending has to come from somewhere, why should I have to subsidize Netflix? The real problem is that taxes are too high for EVERYONE!

• 
  Vladimir Kogan (@vkoganpolisci) reported 33 minutes ago

  @arpitrage Do you think it will be more durable than the Amazon fulfilment center backlash? Or is this just the latest meme issue -- like Ukraine, Gaza, industrial solar, BLM, etc.

• 
  🌻🖤 (@DropsOfEmerald) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Guy_026 @SaltyGirl09 If you think that uber and amazon are the resolve to the struggles of being a new mother with the physical hormonal and life changes and stressors.. then you are a vast part of the problem. Women are only expected to do it all because men dictated long ago that that was the norm

• 
  Patrick OShaughnessy (@patrick_oshag) reported 42 minutes ago

  Ben Thompson on why Google and Amazon are Nvidia's biggest competitors, and what they're doing about it: "Google and Amazon aren't selling their chips on differentiation. They're selling chips as commodities. Nvidia's the one selling the differentiation. So that's Nvidia's biggest problem, because what's the number one advantage that the hyperscalers have? Lower cost of capital. It's a capital fight. They have a lower cost of capital than the neoclouds do. Intel is a good example here. AMD cleaned them out in hyperscaler sales, because the hyperscalers put in the effort to get stuff working on AMD versus Intel. Because they're buying at such scale, the investment to do that is worth it. The part of Intel's business that never floundered was selling to government and selling to enterprises, because they don't have the resources of a hyperscaler. That's why Nvidia talks about selling to sovereign clouds, that's why they talk about selling to enterprises. They want to get into markets where they're not going to be balancing this chip versus that chip. The hyperscalers have always been the threat to Nvidia for that reason, because they're actually bigger."

• 
  Aniruddha Chowdhury (@Aniruddha98_Cho) reported 48 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp I was foolish enough to proceed with this without properly checking your policies, but that does not make this experience acceptable. Please review your policies and stop misleading customers @BandBajaateRaho @AmazonHelp needs to take responsibility for this issue and refund

• 
  Monetization Coach (@monetization_x) reported 49 minutes ago

  @mjboswell @amazon I can’t stand this change. Fix it, Amazon!

• 
  DCarbo (@dajc) reported 53 minutes ago

  @iamcanadian51 Lmao don’t forget they are at Walmart shopping and on the computer buying Amazon product , you just can’t fix stupid

• 
  Matt Youell (@built) reported 54 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Yeah, I started down the replacement path but return options all were bad for me. This is why being able to leave feedback matters, because at least I can try to signal a problem.

• 
  W William Woods (@wwwoods) reported 54 minutes ago

  Contrasting the Global Financial Crisis with the Frauds/Failures described in my new Amazon Bestseller book "Famous Frauds and Financial Failures" Immediately following Lehman’s collapse, global markets tanked, with the Dow Jones dropping over 500 points on September 15 (its worst day since 9/11), a US$10 trillion market value loss. The collapse triggered a debate as to whether some financial institutions (especially banks) should be protected as “too big to fail.” In the prologue to the 2013 reissue of his memoir On the Brink: Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System, Hank Paulson, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary (during the GFC), wrote: "...“Too big to fail” is a misnomer in any case. Complexity and interconnectedness matter as much as size in assessing risk in banking. No bank should be too big or too complex to fail, but almost any bank is too big to liquidate quickly, particularly in the midst of a crisis." Since 2009, Paulson has argued that he bailed out firms not because they were too big to fail, but because their failure would have caused unacceptable damage to the broader economy. Size alone wasn’t the issue; it was the interconnectedness and complexity that made the fallout so severe. The events of 2008 showed that orderly resolution is possible in theory; however, in practice, when markets are frozen and confidence is shattered, liquidation can trigger contagion. Lehman Brothers’ collapse proved that point: its size wasn’t the problem; its web of derivatives and funding dependencies turned a bankruptcy into a heart attack for the financial system. So, the real issue isn’t that any one institution is too big to fail, but that it may be too big or too interconnected to liquidate quickly. In his memoir, Paulson argues: “Larger amounts of higher-quality capital and larger liquidity cushions are the best defences against failures, and liquidity is even more important than capital.” Mark Twain, in his novel The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day, famously said that history never repeats itself, but, like a kaleidoscope, the present often seems to be constructed out of the broken fragments of the past. In the same way, every financial market crisis is different, but financial crises often have the same proximate causes. As I write (Aug 2026), there are parallels developing between the tremors that emerged in U.S. subprime mortgages in 2007, which led to the 2008 collapses, and the liquidity concerns now surfacing in private credit markets. Readers may see, in the factoring of receivables that led to the bankruptcies of U.S. auto-parts supplier First Brands and car dealership Tricolor in the fall of 2025, strong parallels with the failure of Petters (see Chapter 7, where those stories are explored). First Brands’ failure prompted Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, to famously warn during the bank’s Q3 2025 earnings conference call with analysts on October 14, 2025: “When you see one cockroach, there are probably more ... [E]veryone should be forewarned on this.” These defaults and reports of other bad loans have investors spooked about potential losses. As this concern spreads, retail investors are voting with their feet and rushing the exit doors. Investment fund managers both large and small are now limiting quarterly redemptions from their private debt funds as redemption requests from retail investors surge—just as Bear Stearns had to block redemptions from their subprime funds back in 2007. Private credit managers are currently being forced to restrict investor withdrawals, in part in order to avoid triggering a fire sale of their fund’s illiquid loan assets to meet the cash demands. Fire sales are disastrous for hedge funds and investors (see Archegos, Chapter 4 in my book). The mounting stress in private credit funds is caused by a liquidity mismatch— between how quickly their loans mature and how quickly investors now want their money back—and the fact that many of these funds lack a sufficient liquidity cushion. Between loans maturing, asset sales, bank credit lines, and other sources of liquidity (such as emergency injections of capital by the manager itself), these private credit funds simply don’t have sufficient liquidity to meet the skyrocketing level of redemptions. Although these semi-liquid private funds can limit how much gets redeemed each quarter, making dramatic collapses unlikely, the levels of withdrawals could stay elevated in the coming quarters and potentially spill over into public markets. As we show in the book, the lack of a sufficient liquidity cushion, which is what sank Lehman, is often at the root of a financial failure—whether it’s a very large, listed company (Enron—Chapter 2), a big crypto exchange (FTX—Chapter 3), or a hedge fund (Amaranth—Chapter 5, LTCM—Chapter 6, and Platinum—Chapter 8). If another financial crisis is developing now, we can expect to see new Ponzi schemes and frauds exposed and new financial failures emerge. One difference between the 2007–9 global financial crisis and the financial failures described in the book: the GFC produced almost no criminal convictions of top executives at major Wall Street banks or systemically important institutions, despite the trillions in losses, the bailouts, and the widespread harm caused. By contrast, more clear-cut individual cases of fraud, like Enron, Bernie Madoff’s and Tom Petters’ Ponzi schemes, the collapse of FTX, and the hedge fund failures I describe, often led to high-profile prosecutions, convictions, and lengthy prison sentences for the key figures. Perhaps this is the result of a “too big to jail” policy choice by the U.S. Department of Justice. Federal prosecutors often weigh “collateral consequences,” such as considering whether prosecuting a giant bank would cause job losses, market instability, and economic damage. After the GFC, this may have led them to favor deferred prosecution agreements and large civil settlements over criminal trials. Stories like Madoff, Enron, and FTX involve blatant, provable fraud: falsified records, direct theft, or lies told to investors about where the money was. Prosecutors could show mens rea (criminal intent) beyond a reasonable doubt with emails, recordings, and whistleblower evidence. The GFC, on the other hand, was driven by complex, often legal (or deregulated) practices: subprime lending, mortgage securitization into CDOs, credit default swaps, and rating agency failures. Much of it was reckless risk-taking or “control fraud” enabled by weak oversight. Proving that a top executive knew that specific securities were fraudulent and intended to deceive would have been extremely difficult in those complex cases. The GFC was a system-wide failure, and that made proving individual criminal liability much harder to establish than in clear Ponzi schemes or accounting scandals. The U.S. prioritized systemic stability over personal accountability, which meant there were very different enforcement outcomes from the GFC than from the top ten famous frauds and financial failures I write about in my book. BUY THE BOOK AND CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE BONUS MATERIALS at williamwoods dot com/FFandFF

• 
  BuuBooHearts (@BuuBooHearts) reported 54 minutes ago

  Y’all wouldn’t need Amazon if you moved down to the south Walmart basically replaces it 💀

• 
  Corby (@forbiddenpluto) reported 55 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp No one seems to know what’s going on. I’m telling them what fixed things back in May when the same errors were showing.

• 
  Pemberley (@collected_mind) reported 55 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Thank you for your help, but I no longer have any confidence that this is going to be addressed. There are many reviews, complaining of the exact same problem.

• 
  + and - (@pos_and_neg) reported 57 minutes ago

  @amazon Amazon I live in the United States 90% of my past orders have come damaged or not on time and then I call customer service and there's my problem I cannot understand your customer service people If you don't have people in the United States that can talk to me I'll take my business elsewhere 🇺🇸🖕🇺🇸