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 minutes ago
Mesquita	Sign in	9 hours ago
Moorpark	Sign in	11 hours ago
Chicago	Website Down	11 hours ago
Edinburgh	Website Down	12 hours ago
City of London	Website Down	12 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:

• 
  founditcheaper (@founditcheaper1) reported 56 seconds ago

  more dumb stuff on amazon you shouldn't be buying. a 3 pack of forged bbq knives, a camera drone, dark brown hair dye shampoo, a slow feeder dog bowl, non slip stair mats, and a 2 pack of shoe organizers. each one has a promo code. link in bio under september 2 deals can expire at any time

• 
  Raye (@rayemarkets) reported 7 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.

• 
  lon :3 (@seunginplushies) reported 8 minutes ago

  Amazon truck is so slow plus albums are coming tomorrow instead of today 😭😭😭

• 
  Piotr Sikora (@VoltanTweets) reported 12 minutes ago

  @NhelvUsername I was asking because one time there was an issue on my ISPs end that resulted in major packet loss to Amazon servers in Tokyo specifically (where Strive is hosted). Games themselves were not affected because they're p2p but there was a decent chance of getting kicked out of park

• 
  Tesla_Optimus (@Tesla_Optimus_K) reported 12 minutes ago

  Piper ******* says Amazon's AI spend still clears. Meta and Google's returns don't. Aug. 31 note: Overweight Amazon, $320 target. Amazon's ROIC averaged about 17% from 2018–2025 and they see ~14% in 2026 — ugly versus history, least ugly versus peers. Meta's ROIC is sketched down ~27 points from 2024 to 2027, Alphabet ~26. Champion's split is simple: Amazon pours into AWS, a metered business. Meta and Google are pouring into frontier models whose payback is a press release. Jassy actually walks payback periods on the call. The other two talk products and infrastructure. Amazon's ROIC can still sag if they overbuild or price-war the cloud. It's just not falling off a cliff the way the model labs are. Same capex boom. Three different receipts. Source : Yahoo Finance #Amazon #Meta #Google $AMZN $META $GOOGL

• 
  Duck (@penguinfiles7) reported 13 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.

• 
  Gentrified Hoodrat (@talismonk) reported 15 minutes ago

  @OwenBenjamin amazon has spent more money on programming robot tuggers than on the salary of the human team. its batshit stupit. the robot tuggers are slow af, slowing down the whole operation. they will do anything but pay people more. suffer the operation even just to pretend ai is great

• 
  Dr Mark van Rijmenam, CSP (@VanRijmenam) reported 17 minutes ago

  Five juries have now given awards to a book about not having time to think. I treat that as a symptom, not a compliment. My book on riding the tsunami of change has now won five awards. It leaves me oddly unsatisfied. An award means the question landed. It does not mean we answered it. Now What? argues that the hardest problem we face is not artificial intelligence. It is that human beings absorb change at human speed, and change stopped arriving at human speed. Every leader I meet is moving faster. Almost none of them are thinking slower. So here is my stance. The bottleneck is no longer the technology. It is us. Our institutions, our attention, our capacity to make sense of things. You cannot fix a sense-making problem by shipping faster. Irreversible decisions deserve your slowest thinking. Most organizations have this exactly backwards. They deliberate for months over choices they could reverse in a week, then settle the irreversible ones in a single meeting, without thinking of the unintended consequences that will arrive years or decades later. Which decision on your desk this quarter can never be undone? Read why the award worries me more than it flatters me, find the book on Amazon or elsewhere.

• 
  A. (@esqinhiding) reported 17 minutes ago

  @_kingrosier people say Away is good. and Beis. or my brand that i got my amazon that haven’t broken at all lol

• 
  Badgers4life48! (@badgers4ever48) reported 18 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

• 
  Juan Guillermo Ruiz (@JuanRzc) reported 20 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

• 
  It Happens (@NeedsSaidoften) reported 20 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

• 
  DARmama (@DARmamabear) reported 25 minutes ago

  @JohnBWellsCTM @stevendenoon I recently bought a classic book on Amazon. The typeset was awful, the pages had paragraphs misaligned & terrible readability. It was published in Venezuela w/out original copyright info. How can this be? Since hearing JBW talk about the destruction of books, I KNEW what it was

• 
  bhavesh shah (@bhaveshshah) reported 26 minutes ago

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

• 
  지우 (@minccino02) reported 30 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Ahmed’s replies haven’t actually addressed my issue. Just the same response repeated. I really hope someone else on this team can help resolve this. Please don’t let me down again.

• 
  Brian McCormick (@bjmtweets) reported 30 minutes ago

  Take the entire market cap value of businesses that require the internet to run. Amazon, Google, Uber, AirBnB, the list goes on. Tens of trillions. Now take the entire market cap value of businesses providing that infrastructure to run the internet. Much less. Although the value of the internet is transformative to everyone, internet providers were not able to capture much of that value. Ultimately, profitability is not from the value you create, but from your pricing power and moat. Another internet provider will lay cable or provide WiFi for less profit, bringing down industry margins, until the point nobody finds it profitable enough to compete. The market is currently rewarding most every AI infrastructure layer AI business today, but being essential does not guarantee superior economics. The providers that capture the most value will be the one with the most durable scarcity, pricing power, and competitive protection.

• 
  Tim (@timbuiltit) reported 37 minutes ago

  I made $934.65 in August 2026 Facebook CM: $912.77 Amazon Merch: $21.86 AdSense: $.02 (lol) I didn't do much this month to improve be honest so naturally earnings went down. Kinda demotivated waiting for other pages to get monetized and websites to get approved by ad networks. Going to hit September hard to try and get CM earnings back up and also start increasing adsense on the websites I do have approved to diversify a bit.

• 
  Derek Johnson (@rattletrap1776) reported 38 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 🤡📌

• 
  Michael Rucker (@wmrucker) reported 38 minutes ago

  @amazoncareers @amazon You have a real problem when a candidate for a job can’t get or receive emails from talent acquisition but can receive emails from shopping and careers (applications received/changed)

• 
  Akin Oríjà (@mapolami) reported 38 minutes ago

  Localization strategy - maybe the can learn a thing or two about Amazon in China. Tiered Services - maybe could have helped cater to different customer segments like Netflix does. As for the drivers who gamed the platform for immediate gains, this market exit has pulled down the entire house. We must always consider the big picture of our actions.

• 
  지우 (@minccino02) reported 41 minutes ago

  @AmazonHelp Just to clarify, are the same representatives who gave me inconsistent answers each time, and who made my situation more complicated, really the best resource for resolving this issue?

• 
  Jake Martin | Amazon Advertising 🛠 (@jake_rm_) reported 41 minutes ago

  Staying well-stocked is vital because delivery time is a huge driver of conversion rate and organic rank. If your inventory drops below what's needed to meet demand for a keyword in a specific location, Amazon will often lower your rank there and surface a competitor with a faster delivery time. Ads take the same hit, and it starts before you're actually out of stock. Let's say you have a popular variation item getting low in stock. The delivery date pushes out while the low stock ASIN is still live in your campaigns, getting impressions. The shopper sees a delivery date weeks away and scrolls. They would have no idea there's a variation on that page arriving next day. So you end up suppressing the ASIN by hand to stop it serving a bad delivery promise, then going back through the campaigns to switch it all on again weeks later. Low inventory lowers CTR, CVR, organic rank, AND bogs down your PPC operations. Do what you can to keep stock levels healthy!

• 
  two (@one2gloss) reported 42 minutes ago

  @_2skinny its not a recall its just an amazon issue

• 
  Karthik Gangiredla (@KG_Karthik) reported 43 minutes ago

  hi 👋 I'm Karthik — that's me and my co-founder Jagrati. eight years ago I became a dad, and buying baby gear broke my brain. hundreds of options, no clear way to know what's actually safe or worth the money. I'd spent my whole career in commerce (Amazon, then TikTok). even I couldn't cut through it. so we decided to fix it 🧵

• 
  AI News (@ainewsusa) reported 49 minutes ago

  This is smart, but it’s a band-aid. 🤔 Amazon created the phishing problem by training us to trust its emails; now it’s selling an AI guardrail instead of fixing delivery verification itself. Still, if it stops one grandma from losing her savings, it’s worth the rollout. 💸

• 
  Ellie Jay - Sarcastic Author (@EllieJayWrites) reported 52 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?

• 
  Energy Max (@ryanTesling) reported 53 minutes ago

  There are always reasons not to buy a stock. Narrative follows price. Investing is a game of probabilities. Amazon is being sued by the FTC, yields are through the roof and nobody cares about the stock. “Technology laggard” AI has not slowed down and we still need GPU. Yes, FCF is (currently) negative but that will pass that too. Can sentiment be worse? I don’t think so. Long $AMZN

• 
  Prescribed Slur ⋆˚✿˖° (@AestheticSlur) reported 57 minutes ago

  @brebvbi On the way via personal remote drone Amazon delivery, it drops me down like a claw machine

• 
  Your.Favorite.Beach7 (@ldygltrspkls031) reported 57 minutes ago

  @Ilhan Is that why you shut us down, shuttered small businesses and forced us to buy from Amazon? Or what about the tariff refunds? Why did you vote to give money them instead of the taxpayers? Everything you do hurts the American people. You are a threat to us all.

• 
  Hanadi A. (@LittlesTeacher1) reported 57 minutes ago

  @MsKinCali They should be able to send the correct item since it’s their mistake. Hopefully Amazon can fix it 🥰