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 (44%)
• Errors (33%)
• Sign in (23%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Iztapalapa	Sign in	20 hours ago
Frankfurt am Main	Website Down	1 day ago
Canton	Website Down	2 days ago
Mesquita	Sign in	2 days ago
Moorpark	Sign in	2 days ago
Chicago	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:

• 
  Lori Jo 🤪 (@LoriStory20) reported 3 minutes ago

  @45wonyuge @amazon 50% of the time my Amazon deliveries go to the Post Office. Yesterday I picked up a box and it rattled like a box of parts. It was actually a ceramic tissue holder broken in many pieces. The interior packing was just a little *** of paper. No matter the carrier, there was no way it was going to make it to me in tact. Infuriating. I’m staging a tiny house and it was part of my pop of color. Now it’s on me to ship back their packing error. It’s not simple task in a tiny town.

• 
  Richard 🍋 (@ZizouDeTemu) reported 7 minutes ago

  @atuhru You can buy it in Amazon Japan. Problem solved.

• 
  Hanadi A. (@LittlesTeacher1) reported 9 minutes ago

  @MsKinCali They should be able to send the correct item since it’s their mistake. Hopefully Amazon can fix it 🥰

• 
  two (@one2gloss) reported 10 minutes ago

  this is not a recall btw it just an amazon issue

• 
  Shashank Desai (@_desaishashank) reported 12 minutes ago

  Ordered 22 shirts from @amazonIN They delivered on 10 of them and marked delivered for all. I returned those 10 too as it's tiring. Upon raising the issue today my Amazon account is suspended. Now I am losing my Amazon wallet + no refund for 22k that I spent to buy those shirts.

• 
  지우 (@minccino02) reported 13 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp A few days after arriving in the U.S. from Korea, I attempted to use my father’s card on my Amazon account. To verify identity, I submitted my father’s ID card and driver’s license, but Amazon was unable to verify his identity. Following further instructions received by email, I also submitted a photo of the physical card itself. Shortly after, my account was closed. Since then, I have called Amazon customer service numerous times, with wait times ranging from one to three days between calls. Each representative gave me different instructions like creating a new account and trying again, registering the card through a different method, using a different card instead I also submitted a bank-issued Amazon billing statement and documentation from the card company, as requested. This entire process has taken about three weeks with no resolution. In my most recent call, I was finally told that my original account has been locked, and that any new accounts I create under my name will also be affected as a result. I was told there is nothing further the representative could do. I am an international student who will be living in the U.S. for several years. I rely on Amazon for many purchases, and I would like to resolve this account issue permanently rather than continuing to receive inconsistent guidance that takes days to obtain and often creates new problems. I would greatly appreciate it if someone from a specialist or executive resolution team could review my case and help restore or properly resolve my account status. I don't wanna be disappointed any more in amazon

• 
  The Powerful Katrinket (@katrinket17) reported 14 minutes ago

  @leock224 The brand I'm using is called VITALFLOW from Amazon. I ran out and tried a different brand, but much preferred this one. There seems to be a plethora of issues this treats, my mind even seems clearer. It's worth checking into.

• 
  🍳 (@2kiview) reported 16 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp I tried to change my payment method to my new debit card on amazon(.)com, but unfortunately the page keep buffering and won't take me to fill the form. Idk if it's because of my connection or the server?

• 
  Anibal Gutierrez (@AnibalGuti15760) reported 19 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Just to give you an idea how much the unwillingness of your tech support to help.I have t send a routers to be fix,the manufacturer required a copy of the invoice which we can’t access to the account any more,the hacker is controlling that account. How do I get that info ?

• 
  AI News (@ainewsusa) reported 21 minutes ago

  This is smart, but it’s a band-aid. 🤔 Amazon created the phishing problem by training us to trust its emails; now it’s selling an AI guardrail instead of fixing delivery verification itself. Still, if it stops one grandma from losing her savings, it’s worth the rollout. 💸

• 
  PrAkAsH ShArmA (@prakash__sharma) reported 23 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp @amazonIN @jagograhakjago Nothing is going to happen I have repeatedly shared my concerns on 2-3 occasions in last 1 months or more but the same issue keeps repeating And I had to cancel order as order never delivered on time as shown when placing order neither we can connect with delivery agent

• 
  Fine Grain Solutions (@fine_grain_sol) reported 25 minutes ago

  @i2cjak You can get large kits of metric or imperial machine screws/inserts on Amazon. I use them for prototyping but they are bad quality generally so I order specific hardware in bulk once I have sizes nailed down. Really only need to stock a couple sizes for PCB stuff anyway

• 
  Mr. 5 Star (@Mr5Star) reported 26 minutes ago

  @yameater33 @DealsFinderIO I have a few on my watch list on there. But getting one from Amazon would be way better cause I can return it if something is wrong with it. Offerup ain't gon help you if the one you buy has issues

• 
  Your.Favorite.Beach7 (@ldygltrspkls031) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Ilhan Is that why you shut us down, shuttered small businesses and forced us to buy from Amazon? Or what about the tariff refunds? Why did you vote to give money them instead of the taxpayers? Everything you do hurts the American people. You are a threat to us all.

• 
  ˖ . ݁𝜗𝜚. ݁ (@celestiaIjay) reported 28 minutes ago

  thank god i kept my broken amazon knock off since og fate tour

• 
  cheeseburger man (@PepeTheBee2) reported 29 minutes ago

  @AverageRaineFan My issue with this set is they wanted 80 for it, now its just sitting on Amazon for 55

• 
  Jaideep Khanduja (@PebbleInWaters) reported 34 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp @amazonIN @amazon Why don't shut down such irresponsible stores that send such edible items? Charging so high and sending diseased fruits.

• 
  Raye (@rayemarkets) reported 35 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.

• 
  BG Burton (@CuriousInkCo) reported 37 minutes ago

  @MiddleAgedBaby2 @amazon 1st world problems are still real problems because we live in the 1st world! Not getting the stuff you ordered to save time in a timely fashion is annoying AF. Your Amazon experience is very different from mine, & I can’t figure out why. I get offered discounts (usually digital credits) for delivery on my weekly Amazon Day, by shipping in manufactured container, & choosing a no-rush option. They did lose one bag of my grocery order this week, but they credited my account in 6 hours. Wish I knew how to fix it for you. I rely so heavily on Amazon I’d be totally flipping over your experience. 😢

• 
  Prinsenry Thee 1st 📚💎 (@PrinsenryThe1st) reported 39 minutes ago

  There are times while scrolling on X, I stumble upon possible untapped topic ideas for book publishing and I note them down but I tend to forget about them. I’ve checked this topic on Amazon and there are no books there but it is a major problem most WOMEN face. At least, let someone benefit from my research but DYOR first. Publish at owners risk 🥸 FOLLOW FOR MORE UPDATES ON PUBLISHING ➕

• 
  Dr Mark van Rijmenam, CSP (@VanRijmenam) reported 40 minutes ago

  Five juries have now given awards to a book about not having time to think. I treat that as a symptom, not a compliment. My book on riding the tsunami of change has now won five awards. It leaves me oddly unsatisfied. An award means the question landed. It does not mean we answered it. Now What? argues that the hardest problem we face is not artificial intelligence. It is that human beings absorb change at human speed, and change stopped arriving at human speed. Every leader I meet is moving faster. Almost none of them are thinking slower. So here is my stance. The bottleneck is no longer the technology. It is us. Our institutions, our attention, our capacity to make sense of things. You cannot fix a sense-making problem by shipping faster. Irreversible decisions deserve your slowest thinking. Most organizations have this exactly backwards. They deliberate for months over choices they could reverse in a week, then settle the irreversible ones in a single meeting, without thinking of the unintended consequences that will arrive years or decades later. Which decision on your desk this quarter can never be undone? Read why the award worries me more than it flatters me, find the book on Amazon or elsewhere.

• 
  Miami Dolphins Flag Guy (@clay8269) reported 48 minutes ago

  @branderson7474 @AdamSandler I watched so many people retire from the miliary buy a brand new flag fold it place it in their shadow box. I want my flag to have a story not some brand new flag straight from Amazon. The value is my flag will have a story I can pass down.

• 
  bhavesh shah (@bhaveshshah) reported 49 minutes ago

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

• 
  Humberto (@patife) reported 49 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.

• 
  Piotr Sikora (@VoltanTweets) reported 52 minutes ago

  @NhelvUsername I was asking because one time there was an issue on my ISPs end that resulted in major packet loss to Amazon servers in Tokyo specifically (where Strive is hosted). Games themselves were not affected because they're p2p but there was a decent chance of getting kicked out of park

• 
  . (@coldblackwaters) reported 52 minutes ago

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

• 
  Tesla_Optimus (@Tesla_Optimus_K) reported 55 minutes ago

  Piper ******* says Amazon's AI spend still clears. Meta and Google's returns don't. Aug. 31 note: Overweight Amazon, $320 target. Amazon's ROIC averaged about 17% from 2018–2025 and they see ~14% in 2026 — ugly versus history, least ugly versus peers. Meta's ROIC is sketched down ~27 points from 2024 to 2027, Alphabet ~26. Champion's split is simple: Amazon pours into AWS, a metered business. Meta and Google are pouring into frontier models whose payback is a press release. Jassy actually walks payback periods on the call. The other two talk products and infrastructure. Amazon's ROIC can still sag if they overbuild or price-war the cloud. It's just not falling off a cliff the way the model labs are. Same capex boom. Three different receipts. Source : Yahoo Finance #Amazon #Meta #Google $AMZN $META $GOOGL

• 
  founditcheaper (@founditcheaper1) reported 56 minutes ago

  more dumb stuff on amazon you shouldn't be buying. a 3 pack of forged bbq knives, a camera drone, dark brown hair dye shampoo, a slow feeder dog bowl, non slip stair mats, and a 2 pack of shoe organizers. each one has a promo code. link in bio under september 2 deals can expire at any time

• 
  Pixelite (@LittlePixeL_1) reported 58 minutes ago

  @unusual_whales Amazon and similar companies are making record profits and none of that is being passed down employees and consumers as it is...

• 
  Gord ‘Human Truck Driver Respecter’ Magill (@GordMagill) reported 59 minutes ago

  @JamesYear37 The problem is, as you know, James, is that there are no laws against profiteering. I’d love to see every cockroach who runs Amazon Relay put in front of a firing squad, but it’s never going to happen.