30-day block even though the item is no longer in my closet

[sushiwazabi]

I’ll explain the situation simply:

I completely cleared out my wardrobe a few days before the ban.

The items in question were therefore no longer online.
Despite this, Vinted’s algorithm deleted the exact same item (the Diesel hoodie) 3 times.

These listings no longer existed in my wardrobe at the time of the sanction.

Result:

• 3 deletions for a single item
• Counted as 3 infractions
• Automatic 30-day ban

So I’m banned for 1 month for:
• a single item
• deleted several days ago
• counted 3 times
• even though it was no longer active

And what’s more, the item was authentic.
I don’t understand how an account can be penalized for content that is no longer online at the time of the decision.

[Sev]

Hello!

This comes from a report, they tell you that in the first message, there is always a delay between when the report is made and when Vinted processes it, I had that happen, they hid an item I had sold that must have been reported before the sale.

But everything is difficult to explain… how is it possible that they sanction you 3 times on an item that was only present once in your wardrobe? A real Vinted headache!

Did you make an appeal to justify its authenticity? I hope they unblock you quickly.

[anon83268393]

Hello, I did a search using the tags. So what you can do is, like me, type brave kid sarl (diesel enfant) and you will get all the legal information that will be displayed. Take screenshots and send them to Vinted. They are really incompetent. They have no knowledge of the textile market and don’t even know how to do a Google search. Before, there were thousands of Chanel bags for €100. From one extreme to another. Vinted’s reputation is suffering.

[sushiwazabi]

Thank you, here is what I am sending to Vinted:

Subject: FORMAL REQUEST FOR HUMAN REVIEW – ARTICLE 20 DSA – MANIFEST ERROR – AUTHENTIC DIESEL ITEM – PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT BLOCKAGE

Hello,

I am submitting a formal request for an internal review in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act).

The decision to block my professional account is based on a manifest error of analysis and a technical malfunction.

────────────────────────
ITEM AUTHENTICITY – ABSOLUTE PRIORITY
────────────────────────

The item in question is an authentic Diesel Denim Division hoodie.

The verifiable objective elements are as follows:

Inner label stating:

Brave Kid S.r.l
Via Fornaci 14
36063 Marostica (VI)
Italy

Brave Kid is the official company of the OTB (Only The Brave) group, the owner of Diesel, responsible for licensed children’s collections.

Official source:

https://www.bravekid.com

General Conditions of Use:
“The Website is made available for the promotion and the sale of Diesel brand products.”

Legal notice on the label:

www.diesel.com

Official RN number:

RN 74299

Valid US textile registration number corresponding to Diesel / OTB.

Indicated USA distribution:

Samsung C&T America / C4 Designs
1430 Broadway, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10018

Manufacturing:

Made in Bulgaria

Country of production regularly used by Diesel.

Multilingual composition compliant with international standards (FR / DE / ES / JP / etc.).

These elements are consistent, traceable, compliant with Diesel standards, and publicly verifiable.
No material characteristic demonstrates counterfeiting.

────────────────────────
TECHNICAL ERROR – TRIPLE REMOVAL OF THE SAME ITEM
────────────────────────

The blockage is based on three removals of the same item.

However:

– The item was no longer active in my wardrobe at the time of the blockage.
– It was counted three times for a single content.
– A single listing cannot legally justify three distinct infringements.
– The maximum penalty (30 days) was triggered based on an erroneous cumulative count.

I request verification of the internal logs:

– Exact date of actual removal
– Exact date of penalty trigger
– Correspondence of listing technical identifiers
– Verification of algorithmic counting

This situation constitutes a manifest error of automated processing.

────────────────────────
APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
────────────────────────

Article 20 of the DSA (EU 2022/2065)
Obligation to establish an internal review mechanism by a qualified human.

Article 17 of the DSA
Obligation to provide clear, precise, and individualized reasons for moderation decisions.

Article 14 of the DSA
Obligation of diligence and proportionate treatment.

Article L121-1 of the Consumer Code
Prohibition of unfair commercial practices.

Article 1240 of the Civil Code
Liability in case of fault causing damage.

As a declared professional account, this decision results in direct economic damage.

A standardized automated response does not constitute an individualized review in compliance with the DSA.

────────────────────────
FORMAL REQUESTS
────────────────────────

I request:

– An independent and qualified human review
– Complete verification of technical logs
– Written confirmation that an individualized review has been carried out
– Precise communication of the material elements that justified the qualification of counterfeiting
– Immediate lifting of the blockage

In the absence of processing in compliance with DSA obligations, I reserve the right to refer the matter to:

– The competent authority under the DSA
– The DGCCRF
– The competent mediator
– Any competent court

I remain available for any further information and transmission of additional documents.

Sincerely

[anon83268393]

highly motivated and hyper-motivated, documented and referenced. But what a waste of time, credibility for this platform. and stress for us

[sushiwazabi]

Udapte

[anon83268393]

Ah! I doubt Diesel wrote that for them . Their AI is of poor quality and their customer service is completely populated by incompetents. Not even capable of doing a Google search. They were afraid of being sanctioned. This is a model letter for all those (acting in good faith) who are faced with this same problem. Well done

[141]

Are you 100% sure it’s real? Having sold Diesel for a very long time, and seen many counterfeits, I have my doubts. You have to admit, it’s so easy to copy. In my area, there’s no difference in quality between the real and the fake.

[sushiwazabi]

I believe there has been a misunderstanding.

In the screenshot I sent, it states that the Diesel IP rights holder contacted Vinted to withdraw their previous complaint.

Following their official request, Vinted has:

• Restored my items
• Canceled the penalty
• Acknowledged that there was no longer an issue

So this means that Diesel themselves confirmed there was no longer an infringement and withdrew their report.

If the item were a counterfeit, the brand would obviously never have withdrawn its complaint.

The message is very clear: the complaint was withdrawn by Diesel and my account has been reinstated.

[anon83268393]

absolutely! your translation is correct. And you were absolutely right your piece is authentic.

[141]

ok :). my bad.

[Lucile]

Hello,
Let’s remain in kindness here please.
Thank you