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 (33%)
• Sign in (22%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Aulnay-sous-Bois	Website Down	2 hours ago
Papao	Website Down	10 hours ago
Kennedy	Sign in	17 hours ago
Captieux	Errors	21 hours ago
Caen	Website Down	22 hours ago
Rājkot	Website Down	24 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:

• 
  Michael Patrón (@michaelpatron0) reported 8 minutes ago

  @DanielDoor8 FTC is suing Amazon and released info. Amazon replied back with a bunch of counters that don't really address the issue at hand.

• 
  American 🇺🇸 (@SupportAmericaF) reported 8 minutes ago

  @akafaceUS Fry’s Electronics used to be my number one store for everything from basic diode bulbs to high-end computers, monitors, and cameras. But everything changed during one specific visit. I went in to buy a 9-volt battery adapter and asked an employee if they had it. He told me flat out, "We don’t carry those—go buy it on Amazon." Right then, I knew the company was doomed. Exactly one year later, every single Fry's store closed down for good.

• 
  Secret Apps (@getSecretApps) reported 14 minutes ago

  Alexa for Shopping can now tell you if that Amazon text, email, or call is real. Ask what you got, when it arrived, and what it said. It checks Amazon's own send log and answers in seconds: from Amazon, not from Amazon, or can't verify. Open the Amazon app, tap the Alexa icon, and ask something like "Did Amazon text me about a delivery problem yesterday?" US only for now. Would you ask an AI before you tap a scam link?

• 
  TheAlphaLegion (@legioxxalpha) reported 15 minutes ago

  @Awennon Ah yes, with Femstudoes and other forced black rock and Amazon crap Primaris marines are TOTTALLY the problem as 40k gets' slopped and normified

• 
  AFCB Oldgit 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇦 (@AFCBOldgit) reported 16 minutes ago

  @DeborahHD @amazon I don't know about you, but we sometimes have an English girl deliver to us, she's EXCELLENT, but it's virtually always foreign delivery drivers that are the problem, and some, hardly speak English, so whether they're trying to do everything to avoid talking I've no idea 🤷

• 
  Lianchi (@Lianchi830342) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Caterinna313 Everyone should go on Amazon and once you type in the name of the book, scroll down to “Report this article” and report it for whatever reason you find it offensive.

• 
  David Murithi (@DaviMurithi) reported 19 minutes ago

  1 Customer research. Involves digging through reviews i.e. Trustpilot, Amazon to identify recurring patterns, avatars, benefits, objections and their frequencies. This is the most crucial step. You get this step wrong & you will flush all the ad budget down the ******* toilet

• 
  Sebastian Caniulao | Ecommerce Email & Growth (@canipack21) reported 26 minutes ago

  @eliweisss Good problem to have. The piece I would move up the list alongside the hire is pulling those Amazon buyers onto the owned list, since the channel gives you almost nothing on repeat. Insert cards plus a registration offer was the only bridge that ever worked for us.

• 
  Jaideep Khanduja (@PebbleInWaters) reported 27 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.

• 
  pmanik (@pmanik94) reported 28 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp I did not any resolution from you guys in this chat. I am not sure why customer will face problem if there is system glitch from amazon @amazonIN @PMOIndia

• 
  지우 (@minccino02) reported 29 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp I have been unable to resolve a serious account issue through standard Amazon customer support, despite three weeks of repeated calls, and I would like this matter escalated to a specialist or executive team.

• 
  It Happens (@NeedsSaidoften) reported 32 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

• 
  cheeseburger man (@PepeTheBee2) reported 35 minutes ago

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

• 
  Derek Johnson (@rattletrap1776) reported 36 minutes ago

  Protesting Data Centers because you do not like AI… Is like Protesting to shut down Amazon Publishing and Printing because you read one bad book… 😝 Stop being ig—nernt 🤡📌

• 
  Duck (@penguinfiles7) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Ryan_Daigler If you're interested I can send you instructions. You need about $100 in Amazon parts plus an once or two of silver. It's basically electrolysis. It's pretty easy if you're careful about a few things. Low voltage not dangerous. Once you're set up a couple Oz of silver makes an infinite amount of end product. You end up with silver ions in distilled water and it legit instant stops any problem with skin or mucous membrains. I used to get really bad facet nose a few times a year. Now as soon as I start to feel it I snort a bit of this stuff and I mean it instantly stops it. I've used and given it to people for pink eye - instant stop. Like one minute. No more pink eye. I absolutely swear by this stuff. I make it a few small jugs at a time and pour it into dropper bottles. I make a batch every couple years. If you would use the info I can write up details sometime.

• 
  James D Magee (@jamesdavidmagee) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Lord_Sugar Having spent a lot of the last 6 months in hospital I have to agree that YOU could help and YOU could be a great CEO of the NHS - but you would need a good team around you - I am throwing my hat in the ring! I am not sure I can be your apprentice at 64, but I will point out that the idea is somewhat flawed. Firstly, giving the potential savings to Jeff Bezos, (it certainly would not be to his employees!), would not save money, it would just reallocate it elsewhere. There are also lives at risk, so this would need to be handled with a great deal of care! The reasons? 1). Amazon charges are WAY too high and even with a Lord Sugar negotiation it would simply boost their profits and create more money for Bezos. 2) Amazon would not contribute more of these profits in tax! The Fair Tax Foundation note that a large portion of Amazon's UK retail sales revenue is funnelled through its European headquarters in Luxembourg rather than being fully declared under a single UK corporation tax figure. Amazon does not break down corporation tax for the entire UK business structure, meaning figures are estimated through specific local arms like Amazon UK Services. 3) Logistically it would not work transport wise. They have to draw down supplies much quicker for emergencies and a completely unpredictable set of unique circumstances would make this very difficult. 4) Regardless of technology advances I strongly doubt no one single centralised hub could effectively predict, procure and administer this unpredictable level of requirements - it would end up as 8-12 hubs and simply add to costs. There are MANY improvements to be made, there is no question the NHS has WAY too many Trust administrators & management being paid way too much, the facilities management is poor to piss poor. There is a list of cost saving that could be made but it certainly will NOT be solved by Peter Thiel, Alex Karp Stephen Cohen, Joe Lonsdale or Nathan Gettings - it absolutely will NOT be solved by Jeff Bezos!

• 
  Badgers4life48! (@badgers4ever48) reported 38 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

• 
  Jason Swaney (@jason_swan84298) reported 40 minutes ago

  @QQQ275Soon Gotta buy the Iran oil dips over the last 3 months. Amazon was 200 micron up and down 100 ect. especially in your Roth extra play cash portion.

• 
  Jonathan Smith (@DegenerateTBone) reported 41 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.

• 
  Ellie Jay - Sarcastic Author (@EllieJayWrites) reported 42 minutes ago

  Um... It happened again. Another paperback processed, printed and shipped on the same day that it was ordered. And it wasn't even to Canada this time. Did Amazon actually listen to my whining and fix stuff or am I hallucinating?

• 
  Atul srivastava (@atul370) reported 45 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Poor pathetic service by @amazonIN @AmazonHelp no one contacted me nor no one bothered for customer issues.

• 
  Tesla_Optimus (@Tesla_Optimus_K) reported 50 minutes ago

  Tiger Global didn't dump AI. It moved down the stack. The Aug. 14 13F shows Q2 cuts that look violent: Alphabet 10.63 million shares to 5.81 million, about 45%. Broadcom roughly halved. Netflix gone. Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta all trimmed. Then two new lines appear — about 675,000 AMD shares worth ~$392 million, plus a small SpaceX stub. Alphabet is still a top holding near $2.1 billion. This is rebalance, not a white flag. Here's the thing: platforms still fund the capex, chips still bill it. Tiger kept Nvidia huge, doubled Intel, and bought the challenger GPU. Holder counts rose in both Alphabet and AMD. The next tell is cloud margins and who actually wins the rack, not one 13F headline. They sold some of the bill-payer. They bought more of the invoice. Source : Yahoo Finance #TigerGlobal #AMD #Alphabet $GOOGL $AMD

• 
  Raye (@rayemarkets) reported 52 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.

• 
  PREPPER BOB (@badwolf70) reported 56 minutes ago

  @WallStreetApes If the young people are suffering so bad then why are they still living like they did before the pandemic before the economy got bad by simply observing what they throw away in the trash it’s really easy to see the reason they have no money. Is there spending it on the dumbest things possible? They scream about food prices but they’re not eating rice and beans they could buy extremely cheap off of Amazon. No, they’re drinking soda. They’re eating fast food which they have shipped to their doors. They’re complaining about having nothing yet being on the Internet all the time and don’t wanna work. I could go on all day about the multiple examples of multiple Americans that are living too high on the hog for situations where they shouldn’t be in the first place they went through a pandemic they didn’t tighten up their belts and cut back their spending. They spent more and paid for other people to deliver to the doors. They consumed huge amounts of alcohol, wine, and tobacco products in the form of vape pens that come from our adversaries overseas that are trying to kill Americans and they’re still vaping today and God knows what the CCP has in those vape pens. Has anybody tested them on a regular basis?? anyways once you look at America’s trash, you can easily observe multiple directions that American citizens could easily cut back tightener belt and have plenty of money to invest instead of looking to steal money from the Rich. They could redirect the money that they’re wasting and have it work 10 times harder for them instead of just earning that one $500 paycheck a week and in blowing it, they could take that money and put it to work the problem with the pour in the middle class. They never want to get their money working being little and employees working for them to generate more little employees.

• 
  Francisco Kemeny (@FranciscoKemeny) reported 56 minutes ago

  @petergyang @bot I tried using my passkey, that would have been nice. Didn’t work with my Amazon login.

• 
  Gord ‘Human Truck Driver Respecter’ Magill (@GordMagill) reported 57 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.

• 
  𝙹𝙱 (@KOTULCN) reported 59 minutes ago

  @ScullySherSpock @HailMaryLogs There has been differing interpretations of what was said. Amazon is likely waiting out until sales of the dvd release die down and then release the 4 hour directors cut…got milk that consumer money.

• 
  Jane Reynolds (@JaneReynolds8) reported 1 hour ago

  @AmazonHelp Thank you. I’m normally a very happy customer so it’s not a huge problem, but I will just fill out the form.

• 
  The Flicktator (@The_Flicktator) reported 1 hour ago

  @Collider Amazon stop making terrible straight to Prime movies and give us back our ad free tier

• 
  Ghyan (@GhyanOnX) reported 1 hour ago

  Outstanding customer service, @amazonIN @AmazonHelp: 1. Botch my order 2. Fail to pick it up for 10 straight days 3. Have your highest escalation team act like arrogant trash and hang up on me :) You screwed up, you refuse to fix it, and your support is a toxic joke!