Amazon status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Amazon reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Amazon users through our website.

• Website Down (44%)
• Errors (33%)
• Sign in (23%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Canton	Website Down	7 hours ago
Mesquita	Sign in	16 hours ago
Moorpark	Sign in	18 hours ago
Chicago	Website Down	18 hours ago
Edinburgh	Website Down	19 hours ago
City of London	Website Down	19 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:

• 
  two (@one2gloss) reported 3 minutes ago

  this is not a recall btw it just an amazon issue

• 
  Secret Apps (@getSecretApps) reported 5 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?

• 
  Jason Swaney (@jason_swan84298) reported 8 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.

• 
  dgaf_dizzle (@HasanFarazDada) reported 8 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp The problem has not been resolved, no one has called me back and i am being sent around in circles. I am shocked by how bad the customer service is and hope this reached a wider audience.

• 
  AFCB Oldgit 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇦 (@AFCBOldgit) reported 9 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 🤷

• 
  Mike (@PhotonForger) reported 10 minutes ago

  @StoriesBySammi This seems like more an indictment of poor city planning. A data center like that in an industrial park in an area zone for industrial would be just fine. Whoever approved something like this near homes is the real problem. I wouldn't want an Amazon warehouse or anything like that near my home regardless of noise.

• 
  Tyler (@Tylerban) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Mraza38407745 @DealsFinderIO Yeah never buy Amazon 2nd hand. Terrible experience. You will get a PS3 when you order a 4 and then you will wait ages for a refund

• 
  ˖ . ݁𝜗𝜚. ݁ (@celestiaIjay) reported 20 minutes ago

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

• 
  The Powerful Katrinket (@katrinket17) reported 23 minutes ago

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

• 
  American 🇺🇸 (@SupportAmericaF) reported 24 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.

• 
  Fi Rhodes (@RhodesFi32898) reported 25 minutes ago

  @sunakball @Lord_Sugar Amazon does some direct supply. There are so many issues.

• 
  bhavesh shah (@bhaveshshah) reported 25 minutes ago

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

• 
  Elephant (@808crypto) reported 27 minutes ago

  @commonsenseplay This is a terrible take. AI has generated well over a trillion dollars in revenue since 2023. The people buying the chips, META, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, SpaceX know exactly what they're doing.

• 
  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

• 
  Conor (@leprechaunsrfun) reported 29 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp No you're good this is a staff issue with the delivery hand off

• 
  Francisco Kemeny (@FranciscoKemeny) reported 36 minutes ago

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

• 
  Loganpendragonmultiverse (@loganpendragonm) reported 42 minutes ago

  @SOOPLLC My advice after routing for many, many decades and not having a traditional publisher: there are two routes when it comes to publishing. You don't necessarily have to make them mutually exclusive but you either get published by a publisher in some scenario or you self-publish. There are different versions of each one. My recommendation is to decide upfront what you want to do, which route you want to pursue. Again you can do both but you've got to put time into whichever one you decide to do because if you're going to do traditional publishing then it requires a different approach for that. You need to: - draft your book - write your books - do a rough draft - write them - get it to a final draft - get better readers - get it in front of editors - get it in front of companies That means sending out manuscripts to many publishers and waiting forever. The alternative is self-publishing. I struggled with this for a long time. I didn't want to spend six years of my life writing and just dumping my manuscripts out to different publishers, hoping someone grabbed it. What I did is I just said, "You know what? I'm on a right for the passion of writing and I make money off of it. Don't get me wrong but that's not the reason why I do it." I don't make a whole lot off my writing right now and I may never find with that but I finally had to decide that my passion is writing, not publishing. What I started doing is I'll write the books. I believe in the snapshot theory so I don't ever try to make my work perfect but I make it as perfect as I can at that point in my development. I'll write a book, I'll get it edited, and I'll normally go through about three drafts over time. I'll take breaks from it. After the rough draft, when I feel like it's ready to publish, I put it on Amazon KDP, drop it into Select, and leave it. I'll move on to another book. I try not to obsess over it. Some of them grow, some of them don't. Some of them, months down the road, will finally get some traction and I'm not a big-name famous author by any means of the stretch. I have very few readers in fact but I've made some money off of it and I've got some growth. I've had quite a number of reads and some of my stuff takes off, some of it doesn't, but it's just the fact that I have a passion for writing. My recommendation for an aspiring author is to decide which route you want to take and gear up to pursue that route with vigor because if you get consistent and keep pushing, you never know what will happen.

• 
  TheAlphaLegion (@legioxxalpha) reported 42 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

• 
  Juan Guillermo Ruiz (@JuanRzc) reported 42 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Hi. Issue on Prime video. One particular movie plays in bad quality. It's available with Prime, I didn't rent it or use a subscription. Thank you

• 
  David Bruce (@DavidBruceman) reported 43 minutes ago

  @omgsidewalks If climate change is really a concern then why is no one mentioning the destruction of the Amazon rain forest? It slows Global Warming: By locking away greenhouse gases, the Amazon helps slow down the pace of global climate change.

• 
  Duane - 🧙‍♂️🖖 - keybase.io/dfk (@honestduane) reported 49 minutes ago

  @PlumbNick I also get these kind of harassing phone calls from recruiters claiming to work with Amazon who don't seem to understand that as a prior L7 that asking me to boomerang comes with terms and conditions that require they fix the **** that let made me want to leave and not accept L8.

• 
  Alon Michael (@SpiceP0dcast) reported 49 minutes ago

  "Amazon is a machine. The machine might be broken, and this anecdote is a signal. It's a squeak in the machine - and that's not how the machine is designed to work." Listening to this clip from @ShaanVP on @myfirstmilpod, I think this idea from @JeffBezos will be even more important in the age of agents doing the work.

• 
  queenB (@KENDALLKUBAN) reported 51 minutes ago

  @akafaceUS Don’t blame Amazon, ppl got really lazy is the problem

• 
  Lil’ Tim (@tinyTim420247) reported 52 minutes ago

  @applepay has been nothing but a headache due to a lost phone years ago. The problem is I need it to use my @Apple account, but I have never used it for anything else, and apple does not seem to protect my account from unfamiliar devices or locations, like Amazon and banks do.

• 
  Raye (@rayemarkets) reported 53 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.

• 
  leelakurup (@leelakurup) reported 53 minutes ago

  @Tukaram_IndIAS Sir what about companies do not deliver items prepaid and show on line its delivered. Amazon delivery is doing it off late. Then call them convince them item not delivered. Big problem. Any remedy??

• 
  Kolluru Akhil Teja (@akhilteja099) reported 55 minutes ago

  @ZeptoNow Placed order OIJJRHNRL21779 purchased 3 rakhi special amazon GC issued by pine labs and when we are trying to add it in amazon it is throwing validation error.Please help.Reference Id 6014854979439364,6014854979329348,6014854979407104 @AmazonHelp @PineLabs

• 
  two (@one2gloss) reported 57 minutes ago

  @_2skinny its not a recall its just an amazon issue

• 
  Lupen (@0xLupenn) reported 1 hour ago

  In 1956, a secretary invented something in her kitchen. She brought it to work in a small bottle. In 1975, she sold it to Gillette for $47,500,000. It was white paint. This is Jeff Bezos's lecture on innovation at Stanford. Her name was Betty Nesmith Graham. She was an executive assistant and a terrible typist. The new typewriters used film ribbons. You couldn't erase mistakes. So she went home, mixed white paint to match the paper, and started painting over her errors with a tiny brush at her desk. She called it Liquid Paper. Then the WD-40 story. Three people. Government contract to coat Atlas missiles in storage silos so they wouldn't rust. They failed 39 times. The name WD-40 stands for Water Displacement, 40th Attempt. They named it straight out of the lab notebook. The Atlas missile market turned out to be small. So they sold it in hardware stores instead. Then Bezos talks about Amazon. Barnes & Noble launches online. They have 30,000 employees and $3,000,000,000 in revenue. Amazon has 125 people and $60,000,000. Forrester Research publishes a headline: "Amazon.toast." Bezos calls an all-hands meeting. Tells his 125 employees to be terrified every morning. Not of Barnes & Noble. Of customers. Watch the moment he explains the question nobody ever asks him. Everyone asks what will change in 10 years. Nobody asks what will NOT change. Customers will always want low prices, fast delivery, and wide selection. So you build everything around that. It compounds for decades. One week before this lecture, Amazon launched Amazon Prime. $79 a year. Unlimited two-day shipping. Nobody thought it would work. A senior product manager who worked on Prime expansion: $210,000 base salary. 200,000,000 users. It started with a $79 idea announced to a Stanford classroom. Bookmark this and watch later - after this lecture, every "stupid idea" you have will feel like a small bottle of white paint.

• 
  Sourabha Shakya (@sourabha4u) reported 1 hour ago

  Hi @narendramodi is it ok for @amazonIN to pickup a laptop worth 83,000 rupees and not issue a refund? Amazon can not dare such thing in the USA or Europe. How can do business in our soil with such practice?