AWS Account Reinstatement Case Has Had No Response for Over a Week – Verification Team Never Responded

My AWS account was suspended and subsequently closed despite having a USD 0.00 outstanding balance and successful payment.

I opened an Account Reinstatement support case on September 24. AWS Support stated that the case had been escalated to the Verification Team. I was then instructed to contact an AWS verification email address, but that address immediately returned an automated response stating that it is not monitored and that I would not receive a response. The alternative Account Verification link provided by Amazon also failed to provide a working verification form and redirected me to the general AWS website. I reported both problems back to AWS Support and submitted all relevant billing records, payment records, Credit Memo, bank transaction evidence, and proof that my outstanding balance is USD 0.00. I also opened a separate complaint regarding the incorrect support instructions. Since September 25, I have received no substantive response from AWS Support or the Verification Team. Could an AWS Support moderator please help confirm that my existing Account Reinstatement case has actually reached the correct Account Verification / Reinstatement team and help escalate it internally? I am ready to provide any additional verification information immediately if AWS tells me exactly what is required.

Update – Oct 3 There have been further developments today, including a new response from AWS Support. After I posted on re:Post, an AWS Support representative confirmed that both of my support cases had been located and sent to the relevant internal teams. Shortly afterward, AWS sent a new secure-upload verification request. AWS is now asking for a recent statement for the Mastercard used on the account, including the billing address, as well as my name, phone number, and the email address registered to the AWS account. AWS Support separately requested a current bill showing my name and address and a bank statement proving ownership of the payment method. AWS has now stated that the current bill is intended to confirm my identity and residential address, while the bank statement is intended to confirm that I am the legitimate owner of the debit card used for payment. However, there is an important discrepancy concerning when these document requirements were first communicated. In its latest response, AWS Support stated that a verification notification describing the required documents had already been sent to me on September 15 at 15:42 UTC. I have reviewed my Gmail records. The AWS Account Alert I actually received on September 15 is timestamped 15:13 UTC. That message states that AWS encountered an error while confirming the payment method and instructs me to verify the existing payment method or add another payment method through the AWS Billing Console. That September 15 message does not request a bank statement, a current utility or other bill, identity/address documentation, or documents through a secure upload link. I also cannot find a separate September 15 email containing the secure document-upload request that AWS Support now says was sent at 15:42 UTC. If AWS maintains that such a message was sent, I am asking AWS to identify the exact subject line, recipient address, timestamp, and Message-ID of that notification and to provide or resend its original contents. The subsequent sequence is also important. My bank records show that AWS successfully processed the card transaction on September 18. Later that same day, AWS sent an account closure confirmation. By September 25, my support case already contained the relevant evidence available to me, including AWS billing records, payment transaction records, the AWS Credit Memo, bank transaction evidence showing the AWS charge, and evidence that the payment had been processed. AWS-issued billing documents also already contained my name and billing address. AWS has now explained that documents containing confidential financial information submitted through the support case cannot be accepted for verification and were deleted because the Verification Team will only review documents submitted through its secure upload system. That creates another question: if the secure-upload process was mandatory, why was I repeatedly allowed to submit evidence through the support case without being clearly told at that time that those documents could not be used for verification? AWS Support has also now confirmed that this is not an unpaid-balance or intentional non-payment issue. According to AWS, the account action resulted from concerns about the payment instrument and an automated fraud-detection process. AWS Support cited “AWS Customer Agreement Section 6 (Temporary Suspension)” as the contractual basis for the account action. However, the currently published AWS Customer Agreement identifies Section 4 as “Temporary Suspension,” while Section 6 concerns “Proprietary Rights.” I am therefore asking AWS to identify the exact agreement version and contractual provision it is relying on. To be clear, I am not objecting to legitimate account-security or payment-method verification. The unresolved problem is the inconsistent process and explanations: AWS processed the payment → the account was closed later that day → I submitted billing and payment evidence → I was directed by AWS Support to an email address that immediately replied that it was not monitored → more than a week passed without substantive resolution → I sought assistance on re:Post → AWS sent a new secure verification request for identity/address and banking information → AWS then stated that an earlier document request had supposedly been sent on September 15, although I cannot locate that request in my Gmail records. I am asking AWS to reconcile these facts, identify exactly what happened to the account, provide the correct contractual basis, and clarify when and how the document-verification requirement was actually communicated. If AWS cannot restore the service after a clear and properly documented verification process, I have requested that AWS refund the payment and terminate the transaction rather than continuing to retain payment for a service I cannot access.

Update – Oct 3: Request for clarification regarding Taiwan customer data, mainland China access, and the actual reason for the account action AWS has now stated that the suspension and closure of my account were not caused by an unpaid balance or intentional non-payment. AWS instead says that there were concerns relating to the payment instrument. My account access was removed and the account was subsequently closed even though AWS successfully processed the payment. AWS is now asking me to provide additional personal and financial information, including my full name, residential address, and banking/payment-method documentation. Because I am a customer in Taiwan, I am asking AWS to answer the following questions directly:

1. Does any part of AWS's fraud-risk assessment, payment-method verification, identity verification, residential-address verification, document storage, processing, access, or disclosure involve any AWS entity, affiliate, contractor, processor, system, or personnel located in mainland China?
2. Can any identity, residential-address, banking, or payment information submitted for this verification process be accessed from, transferred to, stored in, or processed in mainland China?
3. Can any of this information be disclosed or made available to any authority of the People's Republic of China under any legal, regulatory, contractual, or operational arrangement?
4. Does AWS classify customers located in Taiwan, Taiwan-issued payment methods, Taiwanese banks, Taiwanese billing addresses, Taiwanese IP addresses, or other Taiwan-related account information under any China-related, Greater China, regional, geographic, or elevated-risk category for fraud prevention or account verification? If the answer to all of these questions is no, I am asking AWS to state that explicitly. AWS has already stated that the action was not related to my location in Taiwan. If that is correct, then AWS should identify the actual non-geographic factor that caused my payment instrument to be flagged. This was my first purchase of this service, for only USD 30.45. AWS successfully processed the payment, but access was subsequently removed and the account was closed. AWS then required additional identity, residential-address, and banking information as part of the reinstatement process. AWS has not yet identified the specific factual issue with my payment method. I am therefore asking AWS to explain exactly what information could not be verified and why this transaction required this level of additional verification after payment had already been successfully processed. I am particularly requesting an explanation of why my residential address is necessary, who may access that information, the countries or territories where it may be stored or processed, whether it may be transferred across borders, and whether any of it can be accessed from or transferred to mainland China. If AWS cannot provide the paid service and cannot complete a clearly explained and reasonable verification process, I have also requested that AWS refund the payment to the original payment method.

Update – Oct 4: AWS reversed its verification instructions after I followed them

AWS has now changed its stated verification requirements again.

In an earlier response on October 3, AWS Support explicitly told me that a recent Mastercard debit-card statement was one acceptable verification option and that, alternatively, I could provide my name, phone number, and AWS account email address as a second valid option.

Based on that written instruction, I selected the second option and provided exactly those three items.

AWS then sent another response stating that its earlier explanation was incorrect or unclear. AWS now says that my name, phone number, and account email are only "secondary optional information" and cannot replace the following mandatory documents:

1. A current bill or government-issued document showing my name and residential address.
2. A bank statement or official document proving ownership of the Mastercard debit card registered with my AWS account.

This directly contradicts the immediately preceding AWS response, which presented my name, phone number, and account email as an alternative verification option.

There is also another inconsistency. AWS had previously told me that, for my debit card, a recent statement showing my name, bank name, and the last two digits of the card could be acceptable even if it did not contain a separate billing-address line. However, the newly generated automated verification email again states that the Mastercard statement must include the billing address.

So the requirements have now changed again:

• first, AWS requested identity/address and banking documentation;
• then AWS said a card statement OR my name, phone number, and AWS account email could be used;
• after I supplied the second option, AWS said that option was not actually sufficient;
• AWS has now returned to requiring both residential-address documentation and payment-instrument ownership documentation.

AWS also clarified that completing the current verification does not permanently prevent another verification review. AWS stated that future activity, including adding or changing a payment method, could independently trigger another review.

AWS did confirm one useful security point: it says it will never request a CVV/CVC/security code or a full unredacted card number as part of this type of verification.

However, AWS still did not answer the specific questions I previously asked regarding whether my identity, residential-address, banking, payment, or verification data can be accessed, processed, reviewed, stored, or transferred in mainland China, including by China-based personnel, entities, contractors, processors, or systems.

At this point, my concern is no longer simply that AWS is asking for verification. The problem is that the verification requirements themselves have repeatedly changed after being communicated to me in writing.

I am asking AWS to provide one final, stable, internally consistent list of required documents and to explain why the verification option it explicitly described as valid was withdrawn immediately after I followed it.

I am also still requesting a direct answer regarding mainland-China access or processing of the personal and financial information AWS is requiring me to submit.

Update – Oct 9: I have posted a new update because the case remains unresolved after my formal request for manager escalation. The new post contains the latest status and outstanding issues. AWS Account Reinstatement Still Unanswered After Formal Manager Escalation – Verification Requirements Keep Changing