Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
🚫 GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING

Tech

Kash Patel’s Defamation Suit Against The Atlantic Is Designed To Generate Headlines, Not Win In Court

Published

on

There are defamation lawsuits designed to win, and then there are defamation lawsuits designed to generate headlines for your fans on social media, punish journalists, and maybe — if you’re lucky — force a settlement or intimidate future reporting. FBI Director Kash Patel’s brand new defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic is very obviously the second kind.

On Friday, The Atlantic published a truly devastating profile of Patel, reporting that “more than two dozen” current and former officials described a director who shows up to Ned’s in DC and the Poodle Room in Las Vegas to drink until he is visibly drunk, and who has been difficult to wake on occasions when his security detail needed him. There’s also this fun anecdote in the opening, talking about a time, earlier this month, when Patel had trouble logging into his computer:

He quickly became convinced that he had been locked out, and he panicked, frantically calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White House, according to nine people familiar with his outreach. Two of these people described his behavior as a “freak-out.”

That’s just kinda amusing, but there are a lot more serious concerns, such as the fact that the nation’s top cop is (according to the article): “often away or unreachable, delaying time-sensitive decisions needed to advance investigations.”

The article included a response from Patel, attributed to him by the FBI: “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.”

Advertisement

On Monday, represented by MAGA-world’s go-to lawyer Jesse Binnall, Patel did exactly that, filing a 19-page complaint in federal court in DC seeking $250 million in damages.

The complaint is, to put it charitably, not great. To put it less charitably, it reads like a press release with a case caption stapled to the top.

Let’s start with the central legal problem, because it’s kinda fatal. Patel is indisputably a public official — he runs the FBI — which means under New York Times v. Sullivan, he has to plead and eventually prove that The Atlantic published with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge that the statements were false, or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity — a legal term of art that requires showing the publisher actually suspected the statements were false and deliberately avoided finding out, not merely that they moved quickly or relied on anonymous sources. This is a very high bar. It’s been a high bar since 1964. Every lawyer who files a defamation case for a public figure is supposed to know that this is the hill they have to climb.

Here is how the complaint attempts to plead actual malice:

Advertisement

Defendants’ conscious decision to ignore the detailed, specific, and substantive refutations in the Pre-Publication Letter, and their refusal to give a reasonable amount of time for the FBI and Director Patel to respond, is among the strongest possible evidence of actual malice.

In other words: Patel denied it, The Atlantic published anyway, therefore actual malice. There is no real attempt to plead actual malice beyond that.

That’s not actual malice. That’s just how journalism works. Every news story that anyone has ever complained about in history has been published after the subject denied it. If “the subject denied it and you published anyway” were sufficient to establish actual malice, the First Amendment would be a dead letter and every investigative story ever written would generate a winning lawsuit.

Yes, those filing SLAPP lawsuits often claim that their subjects’ denials constitute actual malice — but that’s not how it works in court, and it never has been.

And we know this argument doesn’t work because we just watched a judge throw out Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal for making essentially this exact argument. That was all of a week ago. A public figure’s denial, followed by publication, is not actual malice. A court said that a week ago. This is well-known, settled law. Binnall surely knows this. Patel’s filing this suit anyway.

Advertisement

The complaint does gesture weakly at some other theories — that the anonymous sources were “partisans with axes to grind,” that The Atlantic imposed a two-hour comment deadline, that there was “editorial animus” evidenced by prior Atlantic coverage. But even stacked together, these don’t get you to actual malice. Relying on anonymous sources isn’t reckless disregard—it’s how journalism works. Short deadlines for comment aren’t evidence of malice either; they’re standard operating procedure for breaking news. Prior negative coverage doesn’t even come close to the legal standard, since public figures doing controversial things tend to get criticized.

There’s also the fact that the complaint tries to twist statements by anonymous sources which the Atlantic reported on as The Atlantic’s own speech. Almost every one of the 19 allegedly defamatory statements enumerated in paragraph 18 is, on the face of the article, attributed to anonymous sources. For example, count 18(e) claims that a request for ‘breaching equipment’ — “normally used by SWAT and hostage-rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings” — was made because Patel was unreachable. The complaint states:

Fitzpatrick knows that her anonymous sources, unwilling to go on the record, are partisans with axes to grind and are not in a position to know the facts.

“Partisans with axes to grind” is not relevant to the actual malice standard. And, come on. Anonymous sources not willing to go on the record accusing a man who runs the FBI and is famously vindictive toward his perceived enemies… is not exactly a shocking revelation.

Almost all of the claims are like this. “According to multiple people familiar with the request.” “According to information supplied to Justice Department and White House officials.” “According to the more than two dozen people I interviewed.”

Advertisement

The Atlantic’s defense (if it even gets that far) is therefore not going to need to be “we can prove Kash Patel was drunk at Ned’s.” It’s going to be “multiple credible sources told us this, we reported what they said along with corroborating evidence, and we have our notes, emails, and recordings to prove that’s what they told us.” That’s a fundamentally different — and far easier — thing to defend. Publishers aren’t required to prove the absolute truth of everything their sources say. They’re required to not publish with reckless disregard for the truth, which requires evidence about what the publisher knew or suspected, not what turned out to be the ultimate truth of the matter.

The Atlantic had multiple sources for each of its claims. It has corroborating evidence to support the claims. That is not a situation that says actual malice. It’s a situation that says “we did careful reporting.”

The complaint doesn’t grapple with this distinction at all. It just keeps repeating that the FBI told The Atlantic the claims were false before publication, as if that’s the end of the story. It isn’t. Subjects of investigative reporting deny things all the time. Publishers weigh denials against their sources and decide whether to publish based on all of the evidence they’ve collected. The First Amendment protects that decision-making process precisely so that powerful officials can’t just deny critical stories into non-existence.

In theory, there’s also the issue of discovery. Whenever cases like this get filed, people on social media say things like “can’t wait for discovery.” But cases like this rarely even get to the discovery stage. The Atlantic will almost certainly file for a motion to dismiss, which almost always happens pre-discovery, and a failure to competently plead actual malice is a good reason for the case to be tossed at that stage, without any discovery.

Advertisement

But also, given that Patel was famously seen on video chugging a beer at the Olympics in the Men’s Hockey locker room, it seems like Patel himself might not be all that interested in discovery either.

Of course, the goal was never to win. The goal was to file. And, sure some people will point to Trump’s settlements with news orgs, but those were to the president himself, and quite clearly designed to curry favor. As powerful as the FBI director is, it’s doubtful that the Atlantic is looking to curry favor with the FBI director via a settlement.

And that brings us to the other tell: the Streisand Effect. The complaint itself complains how much attention the article — again talking about how various officials in the FBI were concerned about situations where the FBI director appeared to be blackout drunk — got some attention on the internet.

The Article was widely disseminated on the internet, through AMG’s magazine and associated platforms, and was foreseeably republished, summarized, and discussed throughout national and international media.

Ya think?

Patel’s response to this alleged injury was to file a $250 million lawsuit — an action guaranteed to drive far more traffic to the very article he says is destroying his reputation. Every news outlet that covers the lawsuit links to or summarizes the original piece. Every social media post about the suit reintroduces the allegations to people who had never seen them. If your complaint is that too many people read the story, filing a splashy nine-figure lawsuit is a strange way to handle it.

Advertisement

None of this is an accident or a rookie mistake. This is how Binnall — and his predecessor in this particular niche, Steven Biss — have always done it.

Long-time Techdirt readers may recall that we first covered Kash Patel filing a SLAPP suit all the way back in 2019, when he was a White House staffer and former Devin Nunes aide. He used Steven Biss — Nunes’s own go-to lawyer for suing critics, satirical Twitter cows, and journalists — to sue Politico over accurate reporting about Fiona Hill’s congressional testimony. That complaint, like this one, read more like a press release than a pleading, opening with a tirade about “weaponized media” and “partisan hacks and character assassins who work to advance the interests and agendas of dark money.”

Biss specialized in filing SLAPP suits for MAGA figures. Most of them lost. He filed so many of them that when he had a stroke in 2023, his law license was eventually suspended on impairment grounds, and a bunch of his cases had to be handed off to someone else. That someone else was mostly Jesse Binnall, who promptly continued the losing streak. The Flynn family’s SLAPP suit against CNN? Tossed. Patel’s own 2024 threat letter to MSNBC commentator Olivia Troye? Answered with a Monty Python reference.

Filing is the point. Winning is beside it. These suits generate favorable headlines in friendly media, signal aggression to critics, raise the cost of covering the subject, and — if everything goes perfectly — get a defendant to settle just to make the expense go away. Whether they actually prevail on the merits is beside the point for the filer. Binnall has built a practice around this model. Patel has used that practice repeatedly across multiple roles over the last few years.

Advertisement

This is a textbook SLAPP, and it’s a good reminder of why we need anti-SLAPP laws to begin with.

Which brings us to a frustrating final wrinkle: the case was filed in federal court in DC, and while DC has an anti-SLAPP statute, the DC Circuit ruled a decade ago that it doesn’t apply in federal court. On top of that, the DC Court of Appeals more recently invalidated part of the law’s fee-shifting provisions. So even though DC ostensibly has protections against exactly this kind of lawsuit, The Atlantic basically can’t use them here. This is a pattern repeated across the country — patchwork state laws, some strong, some weak, many with large loopholes, and many federal circuits have barred their use in federal courts.

This is why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, and why we need strong anti-SLAPP laws in every state and territory. The people who file these lawsuits know exactly which jurisdictions lack them, and they file accordingly. The asymmetry — where the cost of filing a meritless suit is minimal for the plaintiff, while the cost of defending it is substantial for the defendant — is exactly what makes the SLAPP tactic work. Anti-SLAPP laws with robust fee-shifting flip that equation, making bad-faith plaintiffs think twice.

Absent that, we’re left with the situation we have now: the head of the nation’s federal law enforcement agency uses a $250 million defamation suit as a political messaging tool, filed by a lawyer whose track record of losing these cases is long and detailed. The Atlantic will likely win on a motion to dismiss. Patel will get his headlines. And a lot more people will have read about Kash Patel’s alleged drinking habits than ever would have otherwise.

Advertisement

For the supposed “free speech party,” filing vexatious SLAPP suits against investigative reporters has become a rite of passage — a way of making clear there’s a price for making the people in power look bad.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

Apple TV exec leaving to start his own production company

Published

on

Morgan Wandell, who has been with Apple TV since before its launch, is now departing the streaming service in favor of launching his own production company.

In 2017, Apple poached Wandell from Amazon Studios to join its team at Apple Worldwide Video. When Apple TV launched in 2019, his title became Head of International Content Development.

While at Apple, Wandell developed and oversaw production of “Monarch: Legacy of Monsters,” “Tehran,” “Disclaimer,” “Masters of the Air,” and “The New Look.”

Now, it seems as though he’s got other plans. Wandell plans on leaving Apple TV to found his own production company, Kismet.

Advertisement

Kismet will develop and produce premium scripted series for the global marketplace. Its offerings will focus on high-end culturally rooted storytelling.

While he is technically leaving his executive role behind, it seems that he may not be leaving Apple TV entirely. He’s currently in talks with Apple to stay on as a producer on some of his existing projects.

“Helping to build Apple TV’s international slate has been the privilege of my career,” Wandell told Deadline.

“I’m deeply grateful to Jamie [Erlicht], Zack [Van Amburg], and all my colleagues at Apple, and to the extraordinary creators we’ve partnered with around the world. It was a hard personal decision to make this leap from a company as terrific as Apple, but I have always wanted to build a company of my own.”

Advertisement

Matt Cherniss, Apple TV’s Head of Programming and Domestic Development, will take over the Monarch franchise and other series that were under Wandell’s purview. Cherniss currently oversees other hit series, such as “Ted Lasso,” “Severance,” “The Studio,” and “Pluribus.”

Jay Hunt, Apple TV’s creative director, Europe, will see her role expand to oversee international and local-language originals. She is in charge of British staples “Slow Horses” and “Hijack”, among others.

Before his tenure at Apple, Wandell worked as Head of International Series and Head of Drama Series at Amazon Studios for four years. Before that, he acted as Senior Vice President of Drama at ABC studios, overseeing series including “Lost,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Brothers and Sisters,” “Ugly Betty,” and “Criminal Minds.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Microsoft reveals another way it’s making Windows 11 faster, with more performance boosts promised for the likes of File Explorer

Published

on


  • Microsoft is working to make WinUI 3 speedier
  • This is the contemporary framework for the user interface of the OS
  • With WinUI 3 being employed more widely across Windows 11, and tweaked for better performance, it’s another key way in which the OS could be made faster

We’ve learned more about Microsoft‘s efforts to make Windows 11 faster, discovering another front that the company is working on to ensure the operating system becomes more performant in terms of core interface elements.

Windows Central reports that the big drive for better performance — which is part of the broader campaign to fix Windows 11 — doesn’t just involve transitioning elements of the Windows 11 interface to use WinUI 3, but actually speeding up WinUI itself.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

AI customer service bots get rolled back at 74% of firms

Published

on

AI + ML

AI rollback rates hit 81% at firms with mature guardrails, suggesting enterprises are struggling to manage the systems in production, says Sinch

If you’re thinking you can replace your human call center staff with a server farm of bots, think again. Nearly three-quarters of enterprises that deploy AI customer communications agents later roll them back or shut them down, according to new research suggesting the systems are far harder to manage reliably in production than the AI hype implied.

Swedish comms-as-a-service firm Sinch surveyed more than 2,500 AI decision makers from various countries and industries for its AI Production Paradox study. The starkest finding is undoubtedly the 74 percent rollback or shutdown rate for deployed AI customer communications agents tied to governance failures, but that’s not the only sign enterprise AI deployments are falling short of expectations. 

Advertisement

AI rollback rates, which Sinch told us specifically refer to AI projects that were deployed and pulled from live service rather than projects that failed before launch, actually rise to 81 percent among organizations that it describes as having “fully mature guardrails.” That, says Sinch Chief Product Officer Daniel Morris, suggests governance alone is not fixing the problem. 

“The most advanced organizations aren’t failing less; they’re seeing failures sooner. Higher rollback rates reflect better monitoring and control, not weaker performance,” Morris said in a press release. “If governance was the fix, the most mature teams would roll back less, not more. Our data points to a deeper issue.”

According to the findings, 84 percent of AI engineering teams are spending at least half their time on safety infrastructure, leaving little time to develop AI. This is exacerbated by the fact that most firms said spending on AI trust, security, and compliance ranks ahead of AI development itself.

“When 75% put trust, security, and compliance in that top three — ahead of AI development itself at 63% — that’s a finding about where the priority sits within their AI customer communications programs,” a Sinch spokesperson told us in an email. In other words, it seems like most organizations realize that their biggest issue with AI isn’t getting it working properly – it’s getting it to just work safely in the first place. 

Advertisement

“The operational cost of running AI safely at scale is much larger than most organizations expect,” the Sinch representative explained.

The numbers don’t change based on organizational size or budget, either, Sinch told us. 

“The rollback rate holds consistently across every region and every industry in the study, which suggests size isn’t a meaningful protective factor,” the company said. “Rollback isn’t a symptom of under-investment or being too small to afford proper guardrails.” 

Of course, as a business communications service provider, Sinch linked its results back to AI customer service agents not being properly deployed on comms infrastructure designed for AI agents, a problem it’s naturally positioned to offer a fix for. 

Advertisement

Regardless, that three-quarter rollback figure doesn’t seem too out of place when you consider recent customer service automation news. 

As we’ve reported on multiple occasions, replacing customer service staff with AI hasn’t gone to plan for many businesses. Gartner said in June 2025 that half of organizations expecting AI to significantly reduce customer service headcount would abandon those plans by 2027. Sinch’s numbers suggest the problem may extend beyond staffing cuts to the AI agents themselves. Not that far-fetched when Gartner was already warning last year that fully agentless contact centers were not practical in the real world.

“Our vendor evaluations reveal that a agentless contact center is not yet technically feasible, nor is it operationally desirable,” Brian Weber, VP analyst in the Gartner Customer Service & Support practice, told The Register, adding that unexpected costs and unintended results were contributing to abandonment plans – just like what Sinch is reporting now. ®

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

OpenAI Brings Its Ass to Court

Published

on

Wednesday’s episode of the Musk v. Altman trial kicked off on Wednesday with a unique proposition: OpenAI wanted to bring its ass into the courtroom, and lay it bare before the jury. It’s a good thing lady justice wears that blindfold.

A lawyer for Sam Altman’s AI behemoth, Bradley Wilson, approached US district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and handed her a small gold statue with a white stone base. It depicted the rear end of a donkey—with two legs, a butt, and a tail—and was inscribed with the message, “Never stop being a jackass for safety.”

OpenAI lawyers claim a small group of employees presented the gift to chief futurist Joshua Achiam, who started at the company as an intern in 2017 and now leads its work studying how society is changing in response to AI. Wilson said that Achiam interrupted Elon Musk’s parting speech from OpenAI in 2018 to warn that the billionaire’s desire to develop AGI at Tesla could come at the expense of safety. Wilson added that the trophy commemorates some “strong language” that Musk used toward Achiam in response—allegedly, calling him a jackass.

OpenAI requested to present the physical object during Achiam’s testimony on Wednesday, arguing that it adds to their case. While Musk’s team said the statue was irrelevant, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she will consider allowing it when it’s referenced to corroborate the story. However, she seemed less than thrilled about accepting it as official evidence, which would put it in the court’s possession. “I don’t want it,” she said.

Advertisement

Representatives for Musk and OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the ass.

Musk’s lawsuit accuses OpenAI of effectively stealing a charity, misusing his $38 million in donations to build an $850 billion business. In response, OpenAI has argued that Musk has always cared more about controlling a top-tier AGI lab than funding a nonprofit.

Earlier in the trial, Musk lawyer Steven Molo asked him if he ever called an OpenAI employee a “jackass.” Musk said “it’s possible” he did at some point, but that he didn’t mean for it to be offensive. “Sometimes you have to use language that gets people out of their comfort zone, if we’re going in the wrong direction,” Musk said.

OpenAI has long been proud of its jackass. When The Wall Street Journal asked about the statue in 2023, Altman told them, “You’ve got to have a little fun … This is the stuff that culture gets made out of.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Harvard Votes On Limiting ‘A’ Grades

Published

on

Harvard faculty are voting on a proposal (PDF) to curb grade inflation by limiting solid A grades to 20% of students in a class, plus four additional A’s per course. Axios reports: Grade inflation is at a tipping point at Harvard. A move to make A grades harder to come by at one of the world’s leading universities could influence grading debates at peer institutions. Solid A’s account for nearly two-thirds of all undergraduate letter grades. That’s up from roughly a quarter 20 years ago. More than 50 members of last year’s class graduated with perfect GPAs.

[…] Faculty are voting on three separate provisions. Each requires a simple majority to pass. A cap to limit solid-A grades to 20% of enrolled students in a class, plus four additional A’s per course. Changes to how internal honors are calculated, moving from traditional grade point average scoring to an average percentile rank. Allowing courses to use new “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” marks with a “satisfactory-plus” distinction.

A pre-vote faculty poll showed around 60% of the 205 respondents favored the 20-plus-four formula over an alternative. Supporters of the cap argue it’s intentionally modest as it places no restrictions on A-minuses. The four-grade buffer is designed to protect small seminars where a higher proportion of students may succeed. […] If passed, changes would take effect in fall 2027, followed by a mandatory three-year review.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Meta launches Incognito Chat on WhatsApp, the first AI mode it says even Meta cannot read

Published

on

The new mode runs Meta AI on WhatsApp inside the company’s Private Processing enclave, with conversations deleted by default and no server-side record retained.

Meta has launched an Incognito Chat mode for Meta AI on WhatsApp and the Meta AI app, an effort to address the awkward fact that its assistant, like every other major AI chatbot, has until now been able to read the conversations users have with it.

The new mode, the company announced on Tuesday, processes user messages inside what Meta describes as a secure environment that even Meta cannot see, with conversations deleted by default once the session ends.

The technical foundation is WhatsApp’s Private Processing system, the architecture the company published in April 2025 to let AI features run on encrypted data inside Trusted Execution Environments on Meta’s servers.

Advertisement

Inside that enclave, the model can read and respond to a query, but the contents are not accessible to Meta’s engineers, its logging systems, or any of its commercial pipelines.

Other apps offer what they call incognito modes for AI conversations, but Meta’s framing in the announcement is pointed: “they can still see the questions coming in and the answers going out.”

The launch responds directly to a category-wide privacy concern. AI chatbots have become a default tool for the sort of question users would once have asked a doctor, a lawyer, or a partner, with all the data exposure that implies.

OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic each store conversation histories by default, with varying user controls. Apple Intelligence routes some queries through Apple’s Private Cloud Compute, an enclave architecture that is the clearest existing analogue to what Meta is now shipping inside WhatsApp.

Advertisement

Two product details follow from the design. First, the conversations are not saved server-side at all; users cannot pull up Incognito Chat history later because there is nothing to pull up.

Second, the disappearing-by-default behaviour means even a compromised device leaks less, since the chat residue clears between sessions.

Meta has published a technical whitepaper describing the cryptographic architecture for outside review.

A second feature is on the way. Sidechat with Meta AI, also protected by Private Processing, will let users get AI help inside an existing WhatsApp conversation, with the assistant aware of the chat’s context but its responses kept invisible to the other participants.

Advertisement

Meta said Sidechat will arrive on WhatsApp “in the coming months,” without a firmer date.

The launch’s commercial logic is straightforward. WhatsApp has been built for a decade around end-to-end encryption as a selling point, and Meta’s pitch for AI on the platform has had to find a way around the central tension that a conversational AI assistant needs to read your messages to be useful.

Private Processing is the company’s attempt at squaring that circle. The Incognito Chat product is the first time the architecture has been put behind a user-facing feature on this scale.

Whether the implementation holds under scrutiny is a separate question. Trusted Execution Environment-based AI systems have been audited and criticised across the industry, with researchers periodically demonstrating side-channel attacks against similar architectures from Apple, Google, and the hyperscalers.

Advertisement

Meta has invited external review of its Private Processing design, and the new whitepaper extends that posture, but the model’s resistance to subpoena, in particular, has not yet been tested in court.

Incognito Chat with Meta AI begins rolling out on WhatsApp and the Meta AI app this week, with broader availability over the coming months.

The launch lands at the end of a difficult fortnight for Meta on the privacy front, with US employees protesting the company’s new mouse-tracking software on Monday and the company a week out from layoffs of roughly 8,000 staff.

Inside Meta, the bet appears to be that consumer-facing privacy moves like this one will outweigh the internal-surveillance optics.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

How to Use Amazon Seller Central Reports to Scale Your Brand

Published

on

Amazon Seller Central offers a layered reporting suite — with access determined by selling plan, fulfillment method, and Brand Registry status. In most organizations, these reports serve a single purpose — confirming what has already occurred: sales reconciled, fees reviewed, inventory checked. That operational function is necessary, but it represents only a fraction of what these reports are built to deliver. The same reports hold intelligence that directly determines how a brand scales:

Conversion signals that reveal listing degradation before it erodes rank

Acquisition quality data that separates genuine brand growth from retargeting spend

Product feedback loops that surface quality and listing gaps before they compound in reviews

SKU-level margin intelligence that identifies which products can sustain paid investment and which cannot

Advertisement

The gap is not access — it is how the data is leveraged.

This blog provides a structured approach to leveraging five core Seller Central report categories — Business, Advertising, Fulfillment, Return, and Payments — for measurable brand growth. It covers best practices for leveraging reports effectively, the structural limitations every brand team needs to account for before acting on the data, and how Amazon account management helps.  

The Core Categories: How Amazon Seller Central Reports Are Structured

Report
Category

Advertisement

Key
Reports

Role
in Brand Growth

Business Reports

Sales Dashboard, Detail Page Sales and
Traffic by Child ASIN, Brand Performance Report

Advertisement

Conversion health, traffic trends,
listing-level performance

Advertising Reports

Search Term Report, Placement Report,
Sponsored Brands/Display Reports

Search demand, new-to-brand acquisition,
placement efficiency

Advertisement

Fulfillment Reports

Inventory Ledger, Stranded Inventory, Inbound
Performance, Inventory Performance Index (IPI)

Inventory health, stockout prevention,
inbound accuracy

Return Reports

Advertisement

FBA Customer Returns Report, Returns Trend
Analysis

Product quality feedback, brand equity
signals

Payments Reports

Transaction View, Fee Preview Report

Advertisement

SKU-level margin clarity for reinvestment
decisions


How to Use Amazon Seller Central Reports for Brand Growth

Step 1: Audit Business Reports for Brand Performance Signals

1. Detail Page Sales and Traffic by Child ASIN: Read session count, page views, Unit Session Percentage (conversion rate), and Featured Offer percentage at the variation level. Track these metrics weekly per ASIN — a sustained downward trend in Unit Session Percentage is your leading indicator of listing degradation before it erodes rank. 

2. Brand Performance Report: Review Average Customer Review, Number of Customer Reviews, Sales Rank, and Featured Offer percentage together for each ASIN. These four metrics form a direct snapshot of brand health at the listing level. Flag metric combinations that signal brand risk rather than reading each metric in isolation.

Advertisement

3. Sales Dashboard: Review weekly and monthly trend lines across weekly and monthly windows to gauge whether brand momentum is accelerating or declining. Use the Compare Sales feature to layer on year-over-year context — this helps separate genuine trajectory shifts from recurring seasonal patterns. 

Cross-reference sessions against Unit Session Percentage: falling sessions signal a visibility problem; falling conversion with stable sessions signals a listing or pricing issue. 

Note: Business Reports are available only to sellers on a Professional selling plan, and historical data is retained for up to two years.

Step 2: Extract Brand Acquisition Insights from Advertising Reports

Advertisement

Advertising Reports address two brand growth questions that Business Reports cannot answer. The first is which channels and keywords drive new demand into the brand. The second is what proportion of that demand represents genuinely new-to-brand customers versus returning buyers.

1. Search Term Reports: Review the actual queries customers typed before clicking an ad.

Negate: Any term that spends money with zero conversions over 30 days is added as a negative keyword. This is the single fastest way to improve ACoS without changing bids.

Harvest: Any search term that converts at or below your target ACoS is added as an exact match keyword.

Advertisement

For brands managing large campaign portfolios, use the Bulk Operations feature in Campaign Manager to download a custom spreadsheet with Sponsored Products and Sponsored Brands Search Term data. Edit keyword additions and negations directly in the file and upload to update campaigns in a single operation. 

2. Sponsored Brands and Sponsored Display Reports: Isolate the New-to-Brand (NTB) metric inside these campaign types to separate new customer acquisition from repeat buyers. Monitor NTB percentage, NTB order cost, and NTB sales separately from overall ROAS to measure true brand expansion, not branded retargeting.

3. Placement Reports: Compare conversion and spend distribution across top-of-search, product pages, and rest-of-search. Redirect budget toward placements with the strongest NTB and conversion performance. Top-of-search placements carry disproportionate brand visibility and deserve priority investment when NTB indicators support it.

Step 3: Protect Brand Momentum with Fulfillment Reports

1. Inventory Ledger Report: Consolidate inventory movement across Amazon warehouses — adjustments, receipts, and shipments — in a single view. Monitor inventory accuracy and act on discrepancies before stockouts hit high-velocity ASINs.

Advertisement

2. Stranded Inventory Report: Identify stock held in FBA warehouses but unsellable due to listing issues. Each stranded ASIN represents a direct revenue leak. Recover these listings weekly, before the associated search rank decays.

3. Inbound Performance Report: Track the efficiency of FBA shipments, including missing units, incorrect labeling, and receiving delays. Address recurring inbound issues at the source before they escalate into repeat offenses, as persistent issues extend reimbursement cycles and delay restock.

4. Inventory Performance Index (IPI): Monitor IPI as a brand growth prerequisite, not a warehouse KPI. Calculated from fulfillment data, the score directly affects FBA storage limits. A low IPI restricts scalability and caps paid acquisition ceilings.

Step 4: Read Return Reports as Product Quality Feedback

1. FBA Customer Returns Report: Mine return reasons, order IDs, and SKU-level detail for recurring patterns. Aggregate return reasons by ASIN to reveal product issues that would otherwise appear only in individual customer reviews.

Advertisement

2. Return Trend Monitoring: Flag ASINs with rising return rates as a signal of either a product quality issue, a listing accuracy issue, or both. Each failure mode damages brand equity and search rank. Address the root cause visible in return reasons, rather than treating the symptom through returns management.

For example, when the most frequent return reason on an ASIN is “not as described,” the listing content itself is driving the returns. An updated, accurate listing reduces future returns, improves conversion rate, and reinforces brand trust — three outcomes from a single fix.

3. Schedule Report Generation: Set up daily schedules for All Returns and Prime returns, instead of pulling them manually. Three operational constraints to note:

One active schedule per report type

Advertisement

Maximum of 30 reports in the Scheduled Reports section

Schedule changes require deletion and recreation

Reports can be scheduled by return date for both FBA and seller-fulfilled orders to track return reasons and item condition across fulfillment channels.

Step 5: Use Payments Reports to Inform Brand Reinvestment

1. Transaction View: Break down every order into referral fees, FBA fees, promotional rebates, and net proceeds. Surface ASIN-level margin visibility to identify which products can sustain paid acquisition pressure and which cannot.

Advertisement

2. Fee Preview Report: Project FBA fulfillment, storage, and referral fees across existing FBA inventory. Review the report to identify ASINs where upcoming fee changes or aged-inventory surcharges will compress margin. Adjust pricing or inventory planning before the fees hit the bottom line.

Limitations & Challenges of Amazon Seller Central Reports

#1 No Built-in Competitive Benchmarks

Seller Central Reports show only your own performance data. There is no native view of how your brand performs against category peers or direct competitors. External benchmarking requires third-party data or Brand Registry-gated reports.

#2 Data Latency Varies Across Reports

Advertisement

Business Reports refresh daily, while Fulfillment and Payments reports often run on weekly or delayed cycles. This inconsistency complicates cross-report analysis when precise attribution windows matter, particularly for reconciling paid performance against organic results within the same reporting period.

#3 Limited Brand-Level Insights Without Brand Registry

Deeper brand-growth tools sit outside the standard Reports tab. These include Brand Analytics dashboards (Search Query Performance, Market Basket Analysis, Customer Loyalty Analytics), the Brand Dashboard, and Voice of the Customer. Brand Registry enrollment unlocks these additional layers.

#4 Attribution Gaps Between Advertising and Organic

Advertisement

Advertising Reports attribute sales to campaigns, while Business Reports track total sales. Reconciliation between the two requires careful segmentation, especially when paid campaigns and organic traffic overlap on the same keywords.

#5 Report Siloing Across Tabs

Seller Central Reports live across multiple tabs — Reports, Advertising, Returns, Payments — with inconsistent naming and export formats. Cross-report analysis almost always requires careful manual reconciliation.

Best Practices for Using Seller Central Reports Effectively

1. Standardize Date Ranges Across Reports 

Advertisement

Different reports operate on different default time windows. Business Reports default commonly to 30 days, while granular Advertising Reports — including Search Term and Purchased Product Reports — are subject to a hard 90-day lookback limit, not a display default. Manually aligning date ranges across reports before cross-referencing ensures comparisons reflect the same performance window and eliminates attribution mismatches.

2. Benchmark Week-Over-Week, Not Day-Over-Day

Single-day metrics are statistically volatile, particularly on low-velocity SKUs where marginal order volume can produce significant conversion rate variance. Weekly benchmarking normalizes daily fluctuations while keeping the reporting window tight enough to surface trends before they compound.

3. Cross-Reference Reports for Root-Cause Analysis

Advertisement

A conversion decline in Business Reports frequently correlates with a Buy Box shift, a pricing change, or a stranded listing in Fulfillment Reports. Isolating a single metric without cross-report validation increases the risk of misdiagnosis and misdirected corrective action.

4. Export and Archive Reports Externally

Business Reports retain data for up to two years. Granular Advertising Reports, including those referenced above, are capped at a 90-day lookback window with no native recovery option beyond that threshold. Once the window closes, that data is permanently removed from Seller Central — brands that need historical context must export it on a defined schedule.  

5. Align Reporting Depth with Organizational Role

Advertisement

Operational teams require weekly tactical reviews covering stockouts, suppressed listings, and Buy Box performance. Brand leadership requires monthly and quarterly trend analysis focused on category share and customer retention. Calibrating reporting depth to the decision-making level of each function reduces analysis fatigue and maintains actionable review cycles across the organization.

The Business Imperative: Seller Central Reports provide the data. Translating that data into consistent brand decisions — across listings, advertising, inventory, returns, and margins — requires operational discipline that compounds over time.

For brands managing catalog depth, multi-channel fulfillment, and active advertising simultaneously, cross-report analysis, weekly metric reviews, search term management, inventory reconciliation, and fee audits each demand specialization and bandwidth that most in-house teams cannot sustain at the required cadence.

Amazon account management services bring the field-level expertise and technical infrastructure to close that gap — identifying signals early, connecting them across report categories, and converting them into decisions before they compound into performance issues.

Advertisement

As catalog scale increases, inconsistent report review compounds directly into rank loss, wasted ad spend, stranded inventory, and missed reinvestment signals — each one a measurable cost to brand performance. The question is not whether these gaps exist. The question is how long your brand can afford to leave them unaddressed. 

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Trump Already Has His ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ Card. Now He Wants A ‘Get Out Of IRS Audits’ Card

Published

on

from the nice-work-if-you-can-get-it dept

In a ruling that will clearly be remembered as one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court, two years ago, the court gave Donald Trump a get out of jail free card, which he appears to be trying to take full advantage of with all the criming in his second term. But, as always with this guy, it’s never enough.

We’ve already covered in detail the ridiculous situation in which Donald Trump acting in his supposed personal capacity, while still being the president, sued his own IRS for $10 billion, because a contractor leaked his tax returns a while back (that contractor is currently in prison for doing so). Again, there is zero indication of any actual harm. Every president — and nearly all major candidates — for the past 50 years released their tax returns to the public. Except Trump.

A decade ago he claimed that it was because he was being audited, and promised to release them once the audit was over. But he’s never done anything. And, as many people have noted, when President Richard Nixon started this tradition of releasing the president’s tax returns, he was actually being audited by the IRS, and was able to release his returns without a problem.

Either way, a contractor (not an IRS employee) leaked some of Trump’s returns to ProPublica and the NY Times, which resulted in a few stories before the news cycle moved on within days. It certainly didn’t stop Trump from being elected in 2024. And even though the returns were leaked in 2019 and 2020, Trump waited until he was back in the White House (and, in charge of the IRS and the DOJ) to file this $10 billion lawsuit.

Advertisement

We’ve covered the ridiculous claim that the “two sides” (there aren’t two sides) were “negotiating a settlement” and how the judge in the case has tried to call timeout, noticing that since Trump is effectively negotiating with himself there’s no cause or controversy, and thus there may be no jurisdiction for the court to hear the case. There’s still briefing going on over that, but the NY Times reports that the supposed (not really) “negotiations” have continued, with Trump apparently proposing that the settlement include the IRS dropping audits of Trump, his businesses, and his family, which would just be a shocking level of corruption from an administration that has spent its first year and a half in office trying to be as blatantly corrupt as possible.

One of the settlement options the Justice Department and White House officials are reviewing is the possibility of the I.R.S. dropping any audits of Mr. Trump, his family members or businesses, according to two of the people.

Again, even though the news cycle moved on quickly, perhaps it should return to exactly what those leaked tax returns showed: which is that at a time when Trump was publicly claiming to be rolling in cash, he basically paid effectively no income taxes and was racking up massive losses — figures that raise serious questions about his financial entanglements and what he stood to gain from his first term in office.

To have the audits of what happened during those years completely dropped — and not just for him, but for his entire family and related businesses — is another form of a get out of jail free card. Call it a “tax cheat for life” card.

To do this at a time when the public is struggling, due almost entirely to Donald Trump’s ridiculous policies — tariffs driving up inflation massively, an illegal war quagmire in Iran driving up energy prices — is even more insulting to the public that Donald Trump is supposed to be working for. The same day this story came out, Trump was asked about whether he was thinking about the impact of his out-of-control war on Americans’ financial situation, and he responded “not even a little bit” and that “I don’t think about Americans financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

Advertisement

Well, except himself, apparently.

Filed Under: audits, corruption, donald trump, irs, tax returns

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

KDE Receives $1.4 Million Investment From Sovereign Tech Fund

Published

on

The German Sovereign Tech Fund has invested 1.2 million euros ($1.4 million USD) in KDE Plasma technologies to help strengthen the structural reliability and security of the desktop environment’s core infrastructure, including Plasma, KDE Linux, and the frameworks underlying its communication services. Longtime Slashdot reader jrepin shares an excerpt from the announcement: For 30 years, KDE has been providing the free and open-source software essential for digital sovereignty in personal, corporate, and public infrastructures: operating systems, desktop environments, document viewers, image and video editors, software development libraries, and much more.

KDE’s software is competitive, publicly auditable, and freely available. It can be maintained, adapted, and improved in-house or by local software companies. And modifications (along with their source code) can be freely distributed to all users and departments within an organization.

KDE will use Sovereign Tech Fund’s investment to push its essential software products to the next level, providing every individual, business, and public administration with the opportunity to regain their privacy, security, and control over their digital sovereignty. Slashdot reader Elektroschock also shared a statement from Fiona Krakenburger, Technical Director at the Sovereign Tech Agency.

“We have long invested in desktop technologies for a reason: they are the primary way people access and use digital services in everyday life,” says Krakenburger. “The desktop holds personal data and mediates nearly every service we depend on, from booking the next medical appointment, to education, to the way we work. We are investing in KDE because it is one of the two major desktop environments used across Linux and plays a key role in how millions of people experience open technology. Strengthening KDE’s testing infrastructure, security architecture, and communication frameworks is how we invest in the resilience and reliability of the core digital infrastructure that modern society depends on.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

The Steam Controller Wilhelm Scream Easter Egg Is Incredible

Published

on

Thanks to Reddit, one of the best little secrets of the Valve Steam Controller has been discovered. Now I can’t stop dropping it, because it turns out it makes a Wilhelm scream if it does. I tested it, and can confirm. You don’t even need the controller paired to anything to make it happen.

Throughout my several-week review of Valve’s new game controller, I never knew that it made the infamous Wilhelm scream, a stock sound effect that has been used in hundreds of movies, when dropped. How would I know it did that? I don’t drop controllers. Or I don’t intend to. 

But that’s exactly what the controller does when dropped even lightly on any surface. I picked up and dropped the controller a bunch of times onto my sofa, from about 3 feet, and that iconic scream that my kids love happened. Check out the video below.

Advertisement

The scream is randomized: It’s not about how hard you drop it, so don’t do that. A harder accidental fall onto the floor produced no scream. Two straight drops made screams. Then none for a bunch after that. That’s the fun of it.

Apparently, the scream is happening via the motor haptics in the controller, which act as a speaker. Or, is it a speaker? It sounds really good, it’s stunning.

The effect occurs even if the Steam Controller isn’t paired to anything. I just turned the controller on, and while it was cycling for Bluetooth pairing, it still made the drop screams, no Steam Deck or PC on or nearby.

I don’t generally recommend dropping $99 game controllers, but this Easter egg is so amazing that I want all game controllers to make little noises now. What if Joy-Cons made Mario sounds? PlayStation DualSense made AstroBot chirps?

Advertisement

I already loved the Steam Controller. I love it even more now.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025