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 (29%)
• Sign in (25%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Cape Coral	Errors	48 minutes ago
Rennes	Website Down	49 minutes ago
Paris	Errors	3 hours ago
Paris	Errors	3 hours ago
Wien Stadt	Errors	6 hours ago
Gretz-Armainvilliers	Errors	9 hours 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:

• 
  O.P.Chhabra (@chhabraop) reported 7 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp and to maintain an effective grievance redressal mechanism. Despite reasonable efforts, I have been unable to locate an effective contact channel or obtain assistance regarding my issue. I therefore request that my grievance be escalated and addressed in accordance with the

• 
  Cryptopher Colombus (@Cryptoph_Colomb) reported 8 minutes ago

  Here's the problem. SpaceX's free float at IPO is just ~7%. Compare that to every other Nasdaq 100 top-10 member: Apple ~99% · NVIDIA ~97% · Amazon ~94% · Tesla ~83% $30–35B of demand hitting a ~$120B float. That's a squeeze waiting to happen.

• 
  Michael (@PoppyTuffy) reported 9 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Hello @AmazonHelp Team. I have to conclude that above issue resolution is not within control of Customer Service Team to manage, coordinate with Delivery Agents.. I have finally decided to make purchase of above product from the market. @JeffBezos - For your kind information.

• 
  The Fallibilist (@_TheFallibilist) reported 10 minutes ago

  Here's my take on Steve Eisman's take on SpaceXI's IPO: SECTION 1: THE SKELETON The core claims this thesis depends on Claim 1: Tesla is fundamentally a car company operating in a structurally unattractive industry — capital intensive, hyper-competitive, and undercut on cost by Chinese manufacturers. Role in thesis: Establishes that Tesla's problems are not temporary setbacks but permanent features of its business. Without this, the merger isn't necessarily value-destructive. Claim 2: Four consecutive years of declining earnings are evidence of structural, not cyclical, deterioration. Role in thesis: Provides the quantitative anchor for Claim 1. The earnings decline is presented as proof that the structural problems are already manifesting in financial results. Claim 3: Musk will use SpaceX IPO stock as currency to acquire Tesla and merge the companies into a single entity called "X." Role in thesis: This is the predictive core — the event the entire argument is built around. Without this, the rest is just commentary on Tesla's competitive position. Claim 4: SpaceX's $1.75 trillion IPO valuation depends on presenting a clean, high-growth narrative to public market investors. Role in thesis: Establishes why the timing is critical. If SpaceX's valuation doesn't require narrative purity, absorbing Tesla's complexity isn't necessarily damaging. Claim 5: Combining the two entities would force SpaceX shareholders to absorb Tesla's margin pressure, China exposure, and capital requirements — destroying value at the worst possible moment. Role in thesis: This is the punchline. It converts the prediction (Claim 3) into a negative outcome by combining Tesla's weakness (Claims 1–2) with SpaceX's vulnerability (Claim 4). Chain Strength: This is a serial chain with a dependent conclusion. Claims 1 and 2 feed into Claim 5. Claim 4 feeds into Claim 5. Claim 3 is the trigger for Claim 5. If any upstream claim breaks — if Tesla isn't just a car company, if the earnings decline is cyclical, if SpaceX's valuation can absorb complexity, or if Musk doesn't execute the merger — the conclusion weakens or collapses entirely. SECTION 2: THE FRAGILITY FLAGS Where this thesis is structurally strong and where it could break Claim 1: Tesla is fundamentally a car company in a structurally unattractive industry.Structural Assessment: 🟡 ModerateWhy: The three specific mechanisms cited — capital intensity, competitive intensity, and China's manufacturing cost advantage — are real and well-documented in the EV segment specifically. Chinese manufacturers do produce vehicles at lower cost, and this is driven by identifiable supply chain, labor, and industrial policy advantages. That part of the argument is specific and difficult to replace with alternative reasoning. However, the claim performs a critical framing move: it categorises Tesla as "a car company." Tesla's current market capitalisation of roughly $1.3 trillion reflects market pricing of autonomous driving, robotics, energy generation and storage ($12.8 billion in 2025 revenue, up 27%), and AI compute — none of which are addressed. The structural criticism applies to one business line but is extended to the entire entity.Alternative Explanations:Tesla's valuation is driven primarily by FSD, Optimus robotics, and energy — not EV manufacturing margins. The "car company" label may itself be the analytical error. Capital intensity in EVs creates barriers to entry that ultimately benefit scaled incumbents who survive the shakeout. China's cost advantage applies most strongly to the mass-market segment. Tesla's brand positioning and software differentiation may insulate it from pure cost competition. Claim 2: Four consecutive years of declining earnings prove structural decline.Structural Assessment: 🔴 FragileWhy: The evidence is factually grounded — Tesla's automotive revenue declined from $82.4 billion (2023) to $77.1 billion (2024) to $69.5 billion (2025). But the thesis presents correlation as causation without specifying the mechanism that makes this structural rather than cyclical. The word "structural" does enormous work here and is never defined or defended. Critically, the most recent data contradicts the trajectory: Q1 2026 shows 16% year-over-year revenue growth and a 50% increase in gross profit. Gross margin expanded nearly 500 basis points year-over-year to 21.1%. A thesis that depends on "four straight years of decline" while the most recent quarter shows acceleration in the opposite direction has a timing problem.Alternative Explanations:The earnings decline reflects deliberate price compression to gain market share while new revenue streams (energy, FSD) scale — a strategy Amazon executed for years. Heavy capital investment in next-generation products (Optimus, next-gen vehicle platform, Megapack) temporarily depresses current-period earnings. Cyclical auto industry downturn, not Tesla-specific structural weakness. Q1 2026 may signal the turn. Claim 3: Musk will use SpaceX IPO stock to acquire Tesla and merge both into "X."Structural Assessment: 🔴 FragileWhy: This is the central prediction and carries the least evidentiary support of any claim in the chain. Eisman states he "fully expects" this, but the source material provides no causal mechanism for why Musk would execute this, how he would overcome structural barriers, or when it would happen. The amended language in SpaceX's S-1 — noting the company "may issue a significant amount of equity in connection with future transactions" — is circumstantial. Standard IPO filings routinely include broad acquisition language for flexibility; it is not evidence of a specific plan. Prediction markets currently price a merger at 51–57% before mid-2027, which means the market itself treats this as roughly a coin flip. The thesis presents it as a near-certainty.Alternative Explanations:Musk could pursue the "X" vision through a holding company structure, shared services agreements, or operational partnerships without a full corporate merger. SpaceX's board has independent fiduciary duties to its shareholders. A merger that Eisman himself calls value-destructive would face board resistance, shareholder lawsuits, and regulatory scrutiny. Musk may not want to merge operationally. Running a combined aerospace/AI/automotive/energy company would create organisational complexity he has publicly criticised in other conglomerates. The S-1 acquisition language may refer to smaller, targeted acquisitions (AI companies, satellite firms) rather than a Tesla-scale deal. Claim 4: SpaceX's valuation depends on maintaining a clean, high-growth narrative.Structural Assessment: 🟡 ModerateWhy: There is a well-established dynamic where IPO valuations benefit from narrative clarity — simple stories command higher multiples. This is grounded in observable market behaviour, not speculation. However, the claim assumes markets would view a Tesla merger as narrative contamination. That is one interpretation but not the only one. Markets have assigned premium valuations to conglomerates when the combination story is compelling: Amazon across retail, cloud, media, and advertising; Alphabet across search, cloud, and autonomous vehicles. If the "X" narrative — combining orbital infrastructure, global connectivity, autonomous vehicles, robotics, and energy — resonates as a coherent platform story, the merger could enhance rather than damage the narrative.Alternative Explanations:The combined entity could be positioned as the ultimate vertically integrated technology platform, commanding a conglomerate premium rather than a discount. SpaceX's core fundamentals (Starlink at $11.3 billion in 2025 revenue with strong operating margins) may be robust enough to absorb Tesla's complexity without repricing. Retail investors — who are allocated 30% of the SpaceX offering — may respond positively to the "X" vision rather than negatively. Claim 5: Combining the entities would destroy value for SpaceX shareholders.Structural Assessment: 🟡 ModerateWhy: The internal logic is consistent: if Tesla's problems are structural and SpaceX's valuation requires narrative purity, then forcing SpaceX shareholders to absorb Tesla's baggage destroys value. As conditional reasoning, this is sound. But it is entirely dependent on Claims 1, 2, and 4 all being true simultaneously. If Tesla's non-EV businesses are valuable (weakening Claim 1), if the earnings decline is reversing (weakening Claim 2), or if markets welcome the combined story (weakening Claim 4), then the value-destruction conclusion collapses. This claim has no independent structural support — it inherits every fragility from the claims above it.Alternative Explanations:If the merger exchange ratio reflects Tesla's weaknesses (i.e., SpaceX shareholders absorb Tesla at a significant discount to Tesla's standalone market cap), the deal could be accretive. Synergies between SpaceX's orbital infrastructure and Tesla's AI, robotics, and energy capabilities could create value that neither company achieves independently. A merger might unlock operational efficiencies (shared AI compute, combined manufacturing scale) that reduce Tesla's cost disadvantage. A note on the framing. The source material opens with "The man who called the 2008 housing collapse just made a prediction that is hard to ignore (Save this)." This performs a structural function worth flagging. Eisman's 2008 call was a product of specific analytical work on specific financial instruments — collateralised debt obligations, subprime mortgage pools, and the credit default swaps that insured them. That expertise does not transfer to predictions about tech M&A. A structural engineer who correctly identified a bridge flaw does not become generally credible on aircraft design. The "(Save this)" parenthetical creates urgency that substitutes for evidence. Neither the authority appeal nor the urgency framing strengthens any of the five claims above. They are rhetorical packaging, not structural support. SECTION 3: THE BLIND SPOT SUMMARY If this thesis is wrong, this is the most likely reason why The most critical vulnerability is the thesis's definition of Tesla as "a car company." Every downstream claim — the structural unattractiveness, the declining earnings narrative, the value-destruction conclusion — is built on this categorisation. Tesla's $1.3 trillion market cap is not a bet on EV manufacturing margins. It prices autonomous driving, humanoid robotics, energy infrastructure, and AI compute. If Musk's strategic rationale for the merger is to combine SpaceX's orbital network and AI division with Tesla's autonomy stack, robotics programme, and energy business into a vertically integrated technology platform, then the entire "absorbing Tesla's problems" framing is evaluating the wrong asset. For Eisman's argument to hold, it is not enough that Tesla's EV business is under competitive pressure — it must also be true that Tesla's non-EV businesses are worth too little to justify the transaction. The thesis never examines this question, and that unexamined assumption is bearing the most weight.

• 
  The shadow (@star_killer77) reported 13 minutes ago

  The coolest show with a giant fan base was shut down because it would have appealed too much to said fan base. We saw how new star trek worked out. Amazon are run by idiots. The modern audience approach does not work and never has. #savestargate

• 
  O.P.Chhabra (@chhabraop) reported 17 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp @amazonIN including customer support channels and grievance redressal mechanisms. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to locate an effective means of contacting the appropriate support team regarding my issue. I therefore request that this matter be escalated to the relevant department

• 
  Azaprop (@antizi44) reported 18 minutes ago

  @DiligentDenizen @AMERICAISBACK_1 From Gemini. Independent journalistic investigations mapping LinkedIn and public corporate rosters have tracked exact baseline numbers for Unit 8200 veterans working inside these tech giants. Firm-by-Firm Numbers Microsoft: 166+ Employees The Count: Historically, Microsoft has held the highest concentration, with at least 166 Unit 8200 veterans documented in its workforce. Key Context: This footprint faced severe internal tension after a Guardian investigation revealed Unit 8200 used Microsoft Azure to store large-scale surveillance data. Microsoft subsequently blocked Unit 8200’s access to specific cloud systems, and the head of Microsoft's Israel branch stepped down. Alphabet (Google): 99+ Employees The Count: Open-source intelligence mapping confirmed 99 former Unit 8200 operatives at Google. Key Context: In early 2025, investigations revealed that tech employees on military reserve duty—including personnel from Google—actively assisted Unit 8200 in developing custom AI data-mining models. Google publicly stated that its workers' reservist duties are separate and "not connected" to their civilian employment. Meta: 23+ Employees The Count: At least 23 alumni have been verified working within Facebook and Instagram, heavily weighted toward content moderation algorithms, trust and safety, and threat intelligence infrastructure. Amazon (AWS): Dozens (Unquantified Total) The Count: Exact overall headcount is obscured by strict privacy filtering, but intelligence leaks tracked by watchdog groups noted a sharp surge in AWS data-engineering contracts handling Unit 8200 surveillance backups following the Microsoft Azure contract terminations. The Enterprise Tech Pipeline Rather than remaining internal employees, high-ranking Unit 8200 alumni frequently launch enterprise startups that act as critical vendors for firms like Palantir, X, and Alphabet: Wiz (Assaf Rappaport): Founded by 8200 alumni; Google attempted a $23 billion acquisition of the cloud security giant in 2024. Palo Alto Networks (Nir Zuk): Founded by an elite 8200 alumnus; its backend infrastructure handles threat defense across a vast portion of Silicon Valley's corporate servers. Palantir Technologies: While not founded by 8200 veterans, Palantir acts as a primary commercial partner for Israeli defense tech startups, pulling heavily from the same talent pool to engineer its proprietary defense and data-mining platforms.

• 
  Krishan Sharma (@Krishan43318530) reported 19 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp This link is not working.

• 
  Concerned Citizen (@majekro12) reported 22 minutes ago

  Bought a @Portronics mini fan from Amazon. The first unit arrived with missing parts. After requesting a replacement, I received a defective product. Two deliveries, two issues. This is unacceptable quality control and a frustrating customer experience.Shame! #Portronics #Amazon

• 
  Nice Guy Dr. Doom (@theGrassNinjah) reported 24 minutes ago

  @IMAO_ @jafogrits Box office is a fraction of what a modern franchise can make. Its hardly an issue for Amazon

• 
  Manu (@manueth13) reported 25 minutes ago

  @PanasonicIndia @AmazonHelp Although the product return window has already closed, I still expect better support from Amazon in this case. The issue was not caused by any mistake on my part. The problem appears to be due to a defective product and an incomplete inspection during installation. As a customer, I had no technical knowledge to determine that the unusual noise was coming from a defect in the outdoor unit. It was the technician's responsibility to thoroughly inspect and test the entire system, including the outdoor unit, after installation and ensure that everything was functioning properly. If the defect had been identified during installation or during the technician's inspection, the issue could have been reported and resolved within the return period. Therefore, I request Amazon to consider this case as a genuine product defect and provide an appropriate resolution, even though the standard return window has expired.

• 
  pattytuft (@Lambeaudog1) reported 26 minutes ago

  Amazon wtf last month someone tried to use my acct and bank card Amazon removed the unauthorized name from my account I had to close all of my bank card associated with my account at Amazon. Now I wake up to see someone changed my sign in account and sign in phone number I

• 
  Supreme Goat (@goatmcfresh) reported 26 minutes ago

  @LutherTheWriter @PoweroftheTruth @TheQuartering Doubling down? The guy is just leaving Amazon, sure he will end up in a few local shops and than make claims about future plans and the woke

• 
  BlueFlame (@Sikamarutwin) reported 28 minutes ago

  @Wario64 Dam why is Amazon not working right now with the collectors editions I just want to buy it 😫

• 
  Daniel Lacinski (@DanielLacinski) reported 35 minutes ago

  @kirillk_web3 When $NVDA went public in 1999 it made video cards. I still have nvda stock codt basis of a few cents. The company evolved over the years to what it is today. No one saw that. Amazon went public as a book store and and evolved into the what it is today. No one saw that either. You have no clue what spacex will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years or more. Stop looking for a quick fix and learn to build real wealth. If you believe in the company buy the dips on the way up. If you did this with TSLA you would wiuld be rich.

• 
  Johnny (@Johnnyblu84) reported 37 minutes ago

  I submitted a @USPS Missing Package request including a detailed letter outlining the on going issues of @amazon packages not making it to me. Amazon support member told me that all my packages were handed of to a Rep of USPS according to their records Part 1/4

• 
  Winke | Amazon Operator (@WinkeChan) reported 40 minutes ago

  A common trap in Amazon e-commerce operations teams: Everyone looks busy learning. Courses. Bookmarks. Saved posts. Private groups. “Latest tactics.” But when performance gets worse, the team still cannot explain what actually changed. That is not a resource problem. It is a learning loop problem.

• 
  APPU GAMING (@APPUGAMING19) reported 43 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp @amazonIN Please stop redirecting me to the same customer service link. I have already spoken with your support team, and they clearly stated that no replacement or refund is possible. Simply asking me to contact the same support channel again does not resolve the issue.

• 
  Parth Chaturvedi (@_mrchaturvedi) reported 43 minutes ago

  @superstarMB29 @amazonIN This is a widespread issue and Amazon can’t introduce a simple OTP based cancellation. If the customer is not available, call the customer, get OTP for reschedule or cancellation. Unnecessary cancellation makes you a customer who cancels a lot and mark your account with that. @AmitAgarwal should see to this.

• 
  John (@JayTres3x) reported 44 minutes ago

  I need em both. I need India riding my **** on Amazon position and coi eating my booty then have em switch then lay down and see how ride my **** better until my **** fall off while the other make out kissing with me

• 
  @GOUD🔥💖 (@xooms_raju) reported 46 minutes ago

  @JeffBezos Good Afternoon Sir I am Raju from Hyderabad. I order one product through your Amazon website. They give defective product to me on June 4. I am asking Replacement my product But your customer care service not resolving my problem #worstproductsonamazon

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 47 minutes ago

  SpaceX employees have a problem most people dream about. One former employee has $21.4 million in SpaceX shares — 93% of his entire net worth. His advisor wants him to diversify. He wants to hold. This is the richest wealth management problem of 2026. And it’s the same mistake employees made at Amazon in 1999, Pets-com, and every hot IPO since. 💰 YOUR MOVE: The 20/60/20 rule from a serial startup investor: sell 20% at IPO, gradually sell 60% over time, hold 20% forever as a bet on the company. Simple. Disciplined. Proven. For SpaceX specifically — the 180-day lockup means most employees can’t sell at IPO anyway. But when the lockup expires in December, expect a wave of selling. That’s your entry point if you want SpaceX stock at a discount to the IPO price. The best time to buy any hot IPO is often 6 months after launch when early employees finally can sell. @Blackintus

• 
  K Sandeep ☀️🌅 (@_ksandeep) reported 48 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Hi Salwa, The issue seems to be unresolved as I keep getting such packages. Would you please DM me with the escalation matrix.

• 
  the greatest (@njluvszombi) reported 48 minutes ago

  there’s a protest being organized to protest against these stupid dumbass amazon drones but don’t they know amazon isn’t gonna care we gotta shoot this stupid **** *** drones down

• 
  Amazon Help (@AmazonHelp) reported 50 minutes ago

  @Krishan43318530 Please note, if you are unable to contact our team from the application, please copy the link and try from a different web browser from your mobile and connect with a member of our team via chat. After opening the page, please log in to your Amazon account. Once logged in, it will display 2 options, one is "continue previous chat" and other is "start a new chat". Click on start a new chat option, and it will connect to our team without any bot conversation over chat. If you still face any issue, keep us posted. -Sravan

• 
  Mathsnewby (@mathsnewby) reported 51 minutes ago

  @amazon Blink Technical Support has to be one of the worst 'services' in the world. Three days after initial contact, including having to send a PHOTO of an item not working (!) they are telling me they can't send a replacement because they can't find my address on their system.

• 
  Overland Games (@GamesOverland) reported 51 minutes ago

  @ConsequenceKing @PunchoLuncho @DougTenNapel Google and Amazon have already done this. When aws goes down, entire regions of the internet and commerce cease to exist. Again, this is an authority granting issue. We've given them the reigns, said "take us where you will," and then act shocked when they take us to 1984.

• 
  Soham jain (@Jsohamm) reported 52 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Pay prime membership fee , order product for same day delivery, order getting delay , raise a issue , wait for 24 hrs , again wait for 24 hrs , boom order return. This is the story happening with me from last month

• 
  Winke | Amazon Operator (@WinkeChan) reported 54 minutes ago

  Saving a post is not learning. Buying a course is not learning. Joining a group is not learning. In an Amazon e-commerce operations teams, learning only starts to matter when it helps someone solve a real operating problem. Otherwise it just reduces anxiety for a few hours.

• 
  Alex // Technically a Developer (@VictoryForPhil) reported 1 hour ago

  @pronounced_kyle Amazon is the problem there-