Legal Remedies Against Unlawful Marketplace Store Suspension and Termination Under Turkish Law

For many online sellers, losing access to a marketplace account is no longer a minor operational problem.

A business may generate 70%, 80% or even 100% of its turnover through platforms such as Trendyol, Hepsiburada, Amazon, N11, ÇiçekSepeti or another electronic marketplace.

If the platform suddenly closes the seller’s store, the consequences may be immediate:

• daily sales stop;
• advertising investments become useless;
• stock remains unsold;
• marketplace rankings disappear;
• customer reviews and followers lose their commercial value;
• cash flow is interrupted;
• payments may be blocked;
• employees and suppliers may still need to be paid; and
• competitors may capture the seller’s market position.

This raises an increasingly important question under Turkish law:

If an e-commerce marketplace shuts down a seller’s store, can the seller claim compensation for lost sales and lost profits?

The answer is:

Potentially yes.

However, the mere fact that a store has been closed does not automatically create a right to compensation.

The seller must generally demonstrate that the marketplace’s suspension or termination was contractually or legally unlawful, that the seller suffered a measurable loss and that there is a causal connection between the unlawful closure and that loss.

Following the amendments made to Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce and the detailed rules introduced by the Regulation on Electronic Commerce Intermediary Service Providers and Electronic Commerce Service Providers, Turkish law now provides sellers with substantially stronger protection against arbitrary marketplace decisions. The Ministry of Trade expressly states that the current framework aims, among other things, to prevent unfair commercial practices against sellers operating on electronic marketplaces.

The key principle is therefore simple:

A marketplace may have the power to close a seller account, but it does not have an unlimited right to do so arbitrarily.

1. The Marketplace–Seller Relationship Is a Contractual Relationship

When a merchant opens a store on an electronic marketplace, the relationship between the marketplace and the seller is generally governed by an intermediation agreement — aracılık sözleşmesi.

The marketplace provides services such as:

• product listing;
• order infrastructure;
• customer access;
• payment integration;
• advertising tools;
• logistics integration;
• seller ratings;
• campaign participation; and
• communication infrastructure.

The seller, in turn, accepts the marketplace’s contractual terms, commission structure and operational rules.

Under the current Regulation, the conditions of this commercial relationship must be established in writing or electronically through an intermediation agreement.

Article 15 of the Regulation specifically requires the agreement to contain, among other matters:

• the services provided to the seller;
• circumstances permitting restriction, suspension or termination;
• procedures relating to those measures;
• fees and commissions;
• payment periods;
• ranking parameters; and
• rules concerning access to data following termination.

This requirement is extremely important in store-closure disputes.

A marketplace cannot simply rely on a vague statement such as:

“We may close any store whenever we consider it appropriate.”

The current legislation requires significantly greater objectivity.

2. A Marketplace Cannot Close a Store Without Objective Criteria

Article 17 of the Regulation creates one of the strongest protections available to marketplace sellers.

It provides that an electronic commerce intermediary service provider cannot restrict, suspend or terminate its intermediary service except on the basis of objective criteria contained in the intermediation agreement.

This means that the first question in any compensation case should be:

Exactly which contractual rule did the seller allegedly violate?

For example, a marketplace may potentially have legitimate grounds to act where the seller:

• sells counterfeit products;
• repeatedly fails to deliver orders;
• manipulates customer reviews;
• engages in fraud;
• uses stolen payment information;
• infringes intellectual property rights;
• intentionally misleads consumers;
• manipulates marketplace systems; or
• repeatedly breaches clearly defined marketplace policies.

However, the marketplace should generally be able to connect its action to a specific and objectively defined contractual criterion.

A vague statement such as:

“Your store was closed because it was considered risky.”

may not by itself satisfy the regulatory standard.

3. The Seller Must Normally Be Given an Opportunity to Explain

The marketplace’s obligations do not end with identifying a contractual violation.

Under Article 17/2 of the Regulation, where circumstances potentially justifying restriction, suspension or termination exist, the marketplace must generally:

1. clearly explain the reasons to the seller;
2. request an explanation from the seller; and
3. provide the seller with at least three business days to respond.

If the seller’s explanation is insufficient, or the seller fails to respond, the marketplace may then restrict, suspend or terminate the service.

The marketplace must notify the seller of its decision within the periods prescribed by Article 17.

This procedure can become critical evidence in litigation.

Suppose a seller has operated for four years with:

• 30,000 completed orders;
• a high rating;
• no previous serious violation; and
• TRY 1.5 million monthly sales.

One customer claims that a product is counterfeit.

The platform immediately permanently closes the entire store without:

• identifying the particular product;
• requesting an invoice;
• requesting proof of authenticity;
• giving the seller three business days to respond; or
• conducting any apparent investigation.

The seller may have a significantly stronger argument that the termination violated both the agreement and the regulatory procedure.

4. There Are Situations Where a Store Can Be Closed Immediately

The three-business-day defence period is not absolute.

Article 17/7 allows immediate restriction, suspension or termination where the situation:

• arises from legislation;
• concerns public order;
• cannot tolerate delay;
• involves fraud;
• involves a data breach; or
• involves another cybersecurity risk.

Even in these cases, however, the marketplace must notify the seller of the reason without delay.

For example, if a marketplace detects credible evidence that a seller account has been hijacked and is being used to defraud customers, requiring the platform to keep the store open for three further business days would defeat the purpose of the rule.

Immediate suspension may therefore be justified.

But this exception should not be transformed into a general formula permitting marketplaces to avoid the normal procedure.

A platform should be able to explain:

What was the urgent risk?

Why was immediate action necessary?

What evidence supported that conclusion?

5. Arbitrary Store Closure May Constitute an “Unfair Commercial Practice”

The protections go beyond breach of contract.

Law No. 6563 expressly prohibits unfair commercial practices in electronic commerce.

An intermediary marketplace practice is considered unfair where it significantly disrupts the commercial activities of the seller, reduces the seller’s ability to make reasonable decisions or forces the seller into a commercial relationship it would not normally accept.

More importantly, the Law expressly identifies certain conduct as unfair in all circumstances.

One such situation is where, in the absence of an objective criterion in the intermediation agreement, the marketplace:

• reduces the seller’s ranking;
• restricts the service;
• suspends the service; or
• terminates the service.

The same rule applies where such measures are imposed because the seller applied to a public authority or judicial authority.

This provision prevents a marketplace from effectively saying:

“You complained about us to the Ministry of Trade, so we are closing your store.”

Such retaliation can itself constitute an unlawful commercial practice.

6. Does an Unlawful Store Closure Automatically Create a Compensation Claim?

Not automatically.

An administrative violation and a civil compensation claim are related but legally distinct issues.

For a successful contractual damages claim, the seller will generally need to establish four basic elements:

1. Breach

The marketplace unlawfully suspended or terminated the service.

2. Damage

The seller suffered an actual economic loss.

3. Causation

The loss was caused by the unlawful closure.

4. Contractual liability

The circumstances justify holding the marketplace legally responsible.

Article 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligations provides that where an obligation is not performed at all or is not properly performed, the debtor must compensate the creditor’s resulting loss unless the debtor proves that no fault can be attributed to it.

Accordingly, where the marketplace unlawfully breaches the intermediation agreement, Article 112 may provide the principal basis for a compensation action.

7. The Seller Can Claim Lost Profits—but Not Simply Lost Turnover

This is probably the most important issue in calculating compensation.

Suppose a seller previously generated:

TRY 3,000,000 monthly turnover.

The marketplace unlawfully closes the store for three months.

The seller cannot normally argue:

“My damage is TRY 9,000,000.”

Turnover is not the same as profit.

The seller would have incurred costs to generate that turnover, including:

• product acquisition costs;
• marketplace commission;
• shipping;
• advertising;
• packaging;
• personnel;
• payment costs;
• returns;
• taxes and other variable expenses.

The relevant concept is generally lost profit — yoksun kalınan kâr.

A simplified calculation might look like:

Expected sales without closure

minus

costs that would have been incurred to generate those sales

equals

expected net commercial profit

subject to further adjustments for mitigation, market conditions and causation.

8. How Can Lost Profit Be Proven?

Lost-profit claims are often the most difficult part of these cases.

Courts will generally require objective commercial evidence rather than speculation.

Useful evidence may include:

• sales from the previous 12–24 months;
• monthly turnover;
• gross-margin reports;
• marketplace settlement statements;
• accounting records;
• tax returns;
• invoices;
• seasonal sales patterns;
• advertising expenditure;
• product-level profitability;
• customer growth;
• follower numbers;
• ranking history;
• cancellation data;
• stock records; and
• sales through alternative channels.

A financial expert may then calculate the likely profit that would have been earned had the unlawful interruption not occurred.

Article 50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations is also relevant to damage calculations. It provides that where the exact amount of loss cannot be fully proven, the judge may determine the amount equitably by taking into consideration the ordinary course of events and the measures taken by the injured party.

This does not mean that the seller may invent a figure.

The seller must still provide a credible evidentiary foundation from which the loss can be estimated.

9. A Seller With Strong Historical Sales Has a Better Damages Case

Consider two sellers.

Seller A

The store was opened two weeks before termination.

It made only three sales.

The seller claims:

“I would have earned TRY 10 million this year.”

This claim is highly speculative.

Seller B

The store had operated continuously for three years.

Its average monthly figures were:

• TRY 2.5 million revenue;
• TRY 600,000 gross profit;
• TRY 280,000 net profit.

The store is then unlawfully closed for four months.

Seller B has a much stronger evidentiary basis for establishing lost profit.

Past performance is therefore one of the most valuable forms of evidence.

10. Seasonal Businesses Require a Different Calculation

Historical averages should not always be applied mechanically.

Suppose a merchant sells:

• school supplies;
• swimwear;
• Christmas/New Year products;
• Valentine’s Day gifts;
• Ramadan products; or
• seasonal clothing.

If the store is unlawfully closed during its most commercially important month, comparing the closure period with an annual monthly average may substantially understate the damage.

The appropriate comparator might instead be:

• the same month in the previous year;
• similar promotional periods;
• previous campaign periods; or
• category-level sales trends.

A good damages model should reflect the commercial reality of the particular seller.

11. What If the Seller Could Have Used Another Marketplace?

This may reduce the compensation recoverable.

An injured business generally cannot allow its losses to increase unnecessarily and then demand that the other party pay the entire amount.

For example, suppose the seller is removed from Marketplace A.

Within two days, it could reasonably begin selling the same products through:

• its own website;
• Marketplace B;
• Marketplace C; or
• physical stores.

If the seller makes no reasonable attempt to reduce its loss, the marketplace may argue that part of the subsequent damage resulted from the seller’s own conduct rather than the closure itself.

Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations allows compensation to be reduced where the injured party contributed to the occurrence or increase of the loss.

Therefore, a seller considering litigation should document mitigation efforts immediately.

These may include:

• opening alternative marketplace accounts;
• launching direct sales;
• moving advertising budgets;
• contacting existing customers where legally possible; and
• redirecting stock.

12. What If the Seller Was Almost Completely Dependent on One Marketplace?

Dependence does not automatically create liability.

But it can significantly affect the magnitude of the damage.

Suppose:

Marketplace A accounts for 90% of sales.

After closure:

company revenue falls by 85%.

The seller may be able to establish a strong causal link between the closure and the resulting economic loss.

Evidence of dependence may include:

• bank statements;
• accounting records;
• marketplace turnover reports;
• tax records; and
• sales-channel breakdowns.

However, the seller should also expect the platform to argue that excessive dependence on a single commercial channel was itself a business risk.

The outcome will depend on the particular facts.

13. Can Advertising Expenses Be Claimed?

Potentially.

Suppose a seller spends TRY 500,000 on:

• influencer campaigns;
• product photography;
• external advertising;
• warehouse expansion; and
• staff recruitment

specifically to develop its marketplace business.

The store is then unlawfully terminated immediately before a major sales campaign.

Some of these expenditures may potentially be relevant to the seller’s damage claim.

However, not every historical business expense automatically becomes compensable.

The seller must demonstrate:

1. the nature of the expenditure;
2. why it became wasted because of the unlawful termination; and
3. the causal relationship with the marketplace’s breach.

The same principle applies to inventory that becomes commercially unusable because the seller was removed from the platform.

14. What Happens to Money Already Earned Before the Store Closure?

Store closure and payment withholding are separate legal questions.

A marketplace may terminate a seller’s account but still owe the seller money from previously completed transactions.

The seller should therefore separate:

Accrued receivables

Money already earned from completed sales.

from

Damages

Loss caused by the unlawful termination.

Law No. 6563 also specifically regulates the timing of payments made by marketplaces to sellers and classifies certain unjustified payment practices as unfair commercial practices.

A marketplace may have legitimate reasons to temporarily withhold amounts, for example where:

• refund obligations remain;
• chargebacks are pending;
• judicial or administrative measures apply;
• fraud is being investigated; or
• contractual set-off rights exist.

But an indefinite and unexplained freeze of all seller funds should be examined separately.

15. Can a Marketplace Say: “Our Contract Gives Us an Absolute Right to Terminate”?

Not necessarily.

Contractual freedom is important in Turkish commercial law, particularly where both parties are merchants.

However, contractual provisions must still be interpreted in light of mandatory legislation.

Law No. 6563 specifically prohibits certain marketplace practices regardless of how the marketplace attempts to formulate its standard contract.

For example, the Law treats termination without objective criteria as an unfair commercial practice.

A contractual clause cannot simply eliminate a statutory protection introduced specifically to protect electronic marketplace sellers.

Therefore, the correct analysis is not:

“Does the contract contain a termination clause?”

but:

“Is the termination clause lawful, objective, sufficiently clear and was it applied according to the required procedure?”

16. Counterfeit Product Allegations Are a Common Source of Store Closures

One particularly important category of disputes involves allegations that the seller marketed:

• fake clothing;
• counterfeit cosmetics;
• unauthorized electronics;
• fake software licences;
• trademark-infringing products; or
• otherwise non-original goods.

A marketplace certainly has a legitimate interest in preventing counterfeit sales.

But the seller may still challenge an erroneous determination.

Relevant evidence may include:

• supplier invoices;
• authorized reseller certificates;
• customs records;
• manufacturer confirmations;
• serial numbers;
• authenticity documents; and
• purchase agreements.

The 2022 Regulation also contains a specific notice-and-takedown mechanism for intellectual and industrial property complaints, while preserving the parties’ right to apply to judicial and administrative authorities.

Therefore, the fact that a third party submitted an infringement complaint does not always establish that the seller actually sold counterfeit goods.

17. Turkish Courts Are Already Hearing Marketplace Closure Disputes

These disputes are no longer theoretical.

A recent case before the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 18th Civil Chamber, involved a seller whose marketplace store had been permanently terminated following an allegation that it was selling products suspected of being non-original.

The seller argued that:

• it was an authorized seller;
• the products were genuine;
• it had conducted more than 21,000 sales;
• the platform represented its principal commercial channel;
• its store had been terminated without the three-business-day explanation procedure required by Article 17; and
• continued closure threatened the survival of its business.

The seller sought an interim injunction reopening the store.

In its 22 April 2026 decision, File No. 2026/730, Decision No. 2026/574, the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of the interim-relief request, reasoning in substance that the claims required examination in the proceedings on the merits.

The decision is important for two reasons.

First, Turkish courts are expressly examining marketplace termination disputes by reference to Article 17.

Second:

An allegation that termination was unlawful does not automatically result in an immediate judicial order reopening the store.

The evidentiary file must be prepared carefully.

18. Can the Seller Obtain an Interim Injunction Reopening the Store?

Potentially, but it is not automatic.

Article 389 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure allows interim relief where a change in existing circumstances may significantly hinder or prevent the exercise of a right, or where delay may cause serious damage.

The applicant must establish its position at the level of approximate proof.

In a marketplace dispute, the seller might argue that without immediate intervention:

• the business will collapse;
• customers will permanently migrate to competitors;
• marketplace rankings will disappear;
• valuable seasonal sales will be lost; or
• commercial reputation will suffer irreversibly.

Potential interim requests may include:

• temporary reopening of the account;
• suspension of the termination decision;
• removal of an account restriction; or
• other measures appropriate to the particular dispute.

However, courts will also consider whether the requested injunction effectively determines the merits of the dispute before trial.

The April 2026 Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal decision demonstrates that courts may be cautious where the legitimacy of the termination requires extensive factual examination.

19. A Notary Notice Should Often Be Sent Immediately

If a commercially significant store is closed, relying solely on customer-support tickets may be risky.

The seller should consider sending a formal notice identifying:

• the store number;
• closure date;
• stated reason;
• contractual provisions involved;
• Article 17 objections;
• supporting documents;
• sales history;
• request for reinstatement;
• demand for release of accrued receivables;
• warning regarding continuing losses; and
• reservation of compensation rights.

For a merchant, the evidentiary value of a formal commercial notice may become important during subsequent litigation.

The seller should also preserve every message received through the marketplace’s internal communication system.

20. What Evidence Should Be Downloaded Before Access Disappears?

This is a critical practical point.

Sellers frequently wait until after termination to obtain evidence, only to discover that dashboard access has been removed.

The seller should immediately preserve:

1. the intermediation agreement;
2. every version of marketplace policies;
3. closure notifications;
4. violation-score records;
5. seller-support correspondence;
6. invoices;
7. authenticity documents;
8. sales history;
9. monthly turnover;
10. commission statements;
11. payment statements;
12. ranking data;
13. customer ratings;
14. follower numbers;
15. advertising expenditure;
16. return rates;
17. cancellation rates;
18. inventory records;
19. bank statements; and
20. evidence relating to alternative sales channels.

Screenshots alone should not be the only evidence where downloadable original reports are available.

21. Can the Seller Claim Damage to Commercial Reputation?

Possibly, but such claims should be approached carefully.

The fact that a store has been closed does not automatically prove reputational damage.

A stronger case might arise where the marketplace publicly identifies the seller as:

• fraudulent;
• counterfeit;
• unsafe;
• deceptive; or
• involved in illegal activities

without a sufficient factual basis.

The seller would then need to consider additional legal grounds relating to:

• personality rights;
• commercial reputation;
• unfair competition; and
• potentially tort liability.

For a company or merchant seeking non-pecuniary relief, the specific interference with commercial reputation should be clearly demonstrated.

Claims such as:

“My store was closed, therefore I want TRY 1 million moral damages”

will generally require much stronger factual support.

22. Can the Seller Complain to the Ministry of Trade?

Yes.

Because Law No. 6563 prohibits unfair commercial practices, a marketplace’s conduct may also be brought to the attention of the Ministry of Trade where the circumstances justify regulatory intervention.

The Ministry’s current e-commerce framework expressly aims to prevent unfair practices against sellers and regulates both intermediation agreements and the processes for restricting, suspending and terminating marketplace services.

However, a regulatory complaint and a compensation action serve different purposes.

The Ministry may investigate regulatory non-compliance and impose administrative consequences.

It does not ordinarily replace the civil court in calculating and awarding the seller’s lost commercial profit.

Therefore, the two procedures may operate in parallel.

23. Which Court Has Jurisdiction?

Where both the seller and marketplace are merchants and the dispute arises from their commercial relationship, the dispute will ordinarily constitute a commercial dispute.

A compensation action will therefore generally be brought before the competent Commercial Court of First Instance — Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi, subject to the specific jurisdiction provisions and the parties’ valid contractual arrangements.

The seller should also review whether the intermediation agreement contains:

• jurisdiction clauses;
• arbitration provisions; or
• other dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Whether such provisions are valid and applicable must be assessed separately.

24. Mandatory Mediation Must Be Considered Before a Damages Action

Where the seller seeks payment of a monetary receivable or compensation in a commercial dispute, mandatory mediation is generally required before filing the action.

The current Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code covers commercial actions concerning monetary:

• receivables;
• damages;
• objection-cancellation claims;
• negative declaratory claims; and
• restitution claims.

The mediation procedure must therefore be completed before filing a typical lost-profit compensation action.

A request solely for non-monetary relief, such as reopening a store, may require a separate procedural analysis.

Where monetary and non-monetary relief are combined, the procedural strategy should be determined before proceedings begin.

25. How Should the Compensation Claim Be Calculated?

A professionally prepared claim should not use an arbitrary round figure.

A useful model may begin with:

A. Historical sales

For example:

Average monthly turnover before closure:

TRY 4,000,000

B. Historical contribution or net profit margin

Assume:

12%

Expected monthly lost profit:

TRY 480,000

C. Closure period

Four months:

TRY 1,920,000

D. Sales recovered through other channels

Suppose the seller earned TRY 500,000 in equivalent profit through another marketplace.

Potential remaining loss:

TRY 1,420,000

E. Additional proven losses

Possible additions might include:

• wasted advertising;
• storage expenses;
• perishable or obsolete inventory;
• cancellation penalties;
• additional logistics costs.

The ultimate calculation should normally be examined by an accounting or financial expert.

26. Five Questions That Usually Decide the Case

A seller considering action against a marketplace should focus on five questions.

Question 1: What was the precise reason for closure?

Not:

“policy violation.”

But:

Which policy, which transaction and which evidence?

Question 2: Was that ground objectively included in the contract?

If not, Article 17 and Law No. 6563 may strongly favour the seller.

Question 3: Was the statutory procedure followed?

Was the seller given:

• a clear explanation;
• at least three business days to respond where required; and
• a reasoned decision?

Question 4: Was the seller actually in breach?

Invoices, certificates and transaction data must answer this question.

Question 5: What profit was actually lost?

The damages model should be based on accounting evidence, not gross turnover.

27. When Is a Compensation Claim Particularly Strong?

A seller’s claim may be particularly strong where:

• there was no objective contractual ground for termination;
• the platform did not explain the alleged violation;
• the seller was denied the required opportunity to respond;
• the evidence proves the marketplace’s allegation was false;
• the marketplace ignored clear evidence supplied by the seller;
• termination was imposed because the seller complained to a regulator or court;
• substantial and consistent historical sales can be proven;
• the store remained closed for a measurable period; and
• the resulting lost profit can be calculated objectively.

28. When Is the Seller’s Case Weak?

The case becomes substantially weaker where:

• counterfeit products were actually sold;
• fraud is proven;
• repeated contractual violations exist;
• customer harm is substantial;
• the platform acted because of an urgent legal or cybersecurity risk;
• the seller was given an opportunity to respond but produced no explanation;
• historical sales were insignificant;
• claimed future profit is purely speculative; or
• the seller could easily mitigate the loss but deliberately failed to do so.

The seller should therefore investigate the merits objectively before beginning litigation.

29. Practical Action Plan After a Marketplace Store Is Closed

A seller facing a commercially significant termination should act quickly.

First: Preserve the evidence.

Download all marketplace records immediately.

Second: Identify the contractual ground.

Require the marketplace to identify the precise alleged violation.

Third: Use the internal objection mechanism.

Provide supporting evidence within the prescribed period.

Fourth: Send a formal legal notice.

Reserve the right to compensation and demand reinstatement where appropriate.

Fifth: Calculate daily loss.

Prepare a preliminary lost-profit analysis using historic data.

Sixth: Consider regulatory remedies.

Evaluate whether the conduct constitutes an unfair commercial practice under Law No. 6563.

Seventh: Consider interim judicial protection.

If the business faces irreversible harm, examine whether the conditions of HMK Article 389 are satisfied.

Eighth: Commence mandatory mediation where required.

Do not allow a procedurally defective lawsuit to undermine an otherwise strong claim.

Ninth: File the commercial action.

Seek the appropriate combination of reinstatement, receivables and damages depending on the circumstances.

Conclusion: A Marketplace Can Close a Store—but It Cannot Necessarily Do So Arbitrarily

Electronic marketplaces are private businesses.

They are entitled to protect consumers, enforce contractual standards, prevent fraud and protect intellectual property.

But Turkish law no longer allows marketplace–seller relationships to be treated simply as:

“The platform owns the website, so it can close any store whenever it wants.”

Law No. 6563 and the Regulation on Electronic Commerce Intermediary Service Providers and Electronic Commerce Service Providers have created specific protections against unfair marketplace practices.

A platform must generally base a restriction, suspension or termination on objective criteria established in the intermediation agreement and must follow the procedure prescribed by Article 17.

If it fails to do so, the seller may potentially pursue:

• reinstatement-related remedies;
• payment of blocked or accrued receivables;
• compensation for wasted expenditure;
• compensation for other proven economic losses; and, most importantly,
• lost-profit compensation resulting from the unlawful interruption of sales.

The strongest cases are not built around the statement:

“The marketplace closed my store and my turnover fell.”

They are built around four propositions:

The platform had no lawful basis to terminate.

The mandatory termination procedure was not followed.

The seller can prove what its business would probably have earned without the closure.

The financial loss was caused by the platform’s unlawful conduct.

For high-volume marketplace sellers, this distinction can turn what initially appears to be a simple account suspension into a substantial commercial damages claim worth months or even years of lost profit.