Partner Center Enrollment Blocked – Trust Code 715-123160 – Requesting Manual Review
Hello Microsoft Partner Community Team, We are attempting to enroll our company in the Microsoft AI Cloud Indirect Seller Program, but our registration is being blocked by the automated trust verification system. We are a legitimate, legally registered business operating in the cloud connectivity industry. Our DUNS number and all company information entered during enrollment are accurate and match our official government records. Error details: Reference Number: 715-123160 Transaction ID: 0e136d6b-9164-41c3-be26-9b301c9aac24 Correlation ID: e827ab99-6dc9-4901-a464-cff43d00f5c7 Due to this block, our Partner Center account has no active workspaces, which means we are completely unable to create a support ticket through the standard Partner Center portal. We have also tried the partner.microsoft.com/support page, but it redirects us back to Partner Center — creating a loop with no resolution. We are kindly requesting: Escalation to the Partner Center Vetting / Trust & Safety team for manual review A reset or unblock of our enrollment so we can complete registration Guidance on any documentation required (business registration, address proof, domain ownership, etc.) — we are ready to provide everything immediately for email contact, please contact the email address we leave on the request (format as: email address removed for privacy reasons) Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Unified for Partners (UfP)
Hello! A few months ago at Microsoft Ignite, Dan Rippey shared an update on The Future of Partner Support - Customer + Partner + Microsoft. Dan brought 'Unified for Partners' center stage and mentioned that Microsoft is going into listening mode and taking partner feedback. It's easy to share feedback with Microsoft by visiting booths at Ignite. What are some ways partners can share feedback with Dan and others at Microsoft year round? For reference, we have a signed NDA with Microsoft if that helps! My first thought are the two community calls that were running for most of 2025. They were the CSP Technical Training Series and Microsoft Partner Community Q&A Call. However, I don't see any upcoming events scheduled... Thanks! -jon
CSP account suspended without notice, no explanation given. What are my options?
Hi everyone, I'm hoping someone in the community or perhaps someone from Microsoft can help me understand what happened and what I can do next. I've been a Microsoft partner since 2019, and last January I renewed my Partner Success Core Benefits program. A few months later, I discovered my CSP account had been suspended with no prior notification whatsoever. I opened a support ticket, and the response I received cited section 4.b of the Microsoft AI Cloud Program Agreement, essentially stating that Microsoft can terminate a partner relationship with 30 days' notice and is not required to provide a reason. I understand this is contractually possible but I received no notice, and no explanation. After re-opening the case multiple times, I was told to enroll into a new tenant with a new enrollment. I attempted this, but it did not work. When I followed up, I received copy-paste responses directing me back to the same steps. To summarize where I am right now: Partner since 2019, with renewed subscriptions as recently as January Account suspended and no advance notice received No explanation provided, citing section 4.b of the agreement New tenant enrollment suggested but unsuccessful Support has been non-responsive beyond templated replies I'm not here to argue, I accept that Microsoft has the right to make decisions about its partner ecosystem. What I'm asking for is basic transparency: did I do something wrong? If there was a compliance issue, a policy violation, or any other reason for the suspension, I would genuinely like to know so I can understand and, if possible, address it. I also have some practical questions the community may be able to help with: Is there a formal appeal or review process for suspended partner accounts? Is new enrollment genuinely possible after a termination under 4.b, and if so, what are the correct steps? Has anyone else experienced this and found a way to resolve it constructively? Is there an escalation path beyond the standard support ticket process? I know I'm a small partner and this is likely a minor matter from Microsoft's perspective. But for a small business that has invested years in this program and renewed in good faith just months ago, this situation has had a real impact. A clear explanation, even a difficult one would go a long way. Any guidance, shared experiences, or pointers to the right escalation channel would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.CSP Account suspended without notification, no explanation given
Hello Microsoft Community, I'm hoping someone here has experienced something similar and can point me in the right direction. I have been a Microsoft Partner since 2019. This past January I renewed my Partner Success Core Benefits pack. A couple of weeks ago I noticed I had lost access to all my benefits. I opened a support case, and after going back and forth I still have no resolution. The only explanation I've received is a reference to section 4.b of the Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program Agreement, which states that either party can terminate the relationship with 30 days' notice and without providing a reason. No notification was ever sent to me. No 30-day notice. I simply woke up one day with no access. At one point I was told I could re-enroll under a new tenant. I tried this, and it didn't work. When I followed up, the support team went back to citing section 4.b and closed the door again. I understand I'm a small partner in Microsoft's ecosystem, but I've invested years building my business around this partnership, renewed my benefits in good faith just a few months ago, and I would love to find a constructive way forward. My questions for the community: 1. **Is there a formal escalation path** beyond standard Partner Center support cases? 2. **Has anyone successfully re-enrolled** after a suspension of this kind, and what was the process? Any guidance, shared experience, or contacts would be enormously appreciated. I am not looking to complain, I just want to understand my options and get back to serving my customers. Thank you in advance.
Direct Bill Partner Status - Terminated
Hello, I'm writing here after four months of unresolved escalation through every standard support channel, and after reading the recent threads from ShayD , swathen , and ElDani . Our case appears to belong to the same family of issues, and I'm hoping raising it publicly will help both reach the correct internal Microsoft team and establish the broader pattern that seems to be affecting multiple partners across different markets. Who we are We are a longstanding Microsoft CSP partner based in Mongolia. We are the only Direct Bill CSP partner in the country, one of our market's top CSPs overall, and a multi-time Microsoft Country Partner of the Year. We service a large active customer base across enterprise, public sector, and SMB segments. What happened February 2, 2026: Original support case opened regarding a billing report discrepancy that surfaced in our Partner Center data. March 31, 2026: Microsoft formally acknowledged, in writing, in case #2602020010000623, that the discrepancy was caused by a Microsoft-side reporting error — not by any action or non-compliance on our part. April 1, 2026 — one day after the written acknowledgment of fault: Our Direct Bill Partner status was revoked by the system, and our Partner Center management capabilities were disabled the same day. We can no longer provision, modify, or service customer subscriptions. Since April 1: We have opened five separate support cases attempting to resolve the revocation. Each has been force-closed with instructions to file a new one. None has produced a named owner, a timeline, or a resolution path. Responses have consistently been variations of "under review" or "identifying the correct team." A TP&D ticket filed on the recommendation of our ASfP support manager was closed as out-of-scope. Our ASfP manager has confirmed that they cannot identify the correct internal escalation path, and mentioned that similar cases have been observed in other markets recently. Current impact A large base of end customers — including public sector and enterprise accounts — can no longer be properly serviced through their established CSP relationship. As the only Direct Bill CSP, our incapacitation effectively means Microsoft currently has no functioning Direct Bill CSP coverage in an entire country. Any customer requiring services through this channel has no path to receive them at the moment. Customer impact is accelerating each week the situation persists, and the reputational consequences are extending into the local market more broadly. What we're asking for Escalation of the above tickets to the appropriate CSP Accounts & Enrollment team, or to whichever internal Microsoft team owns erroneous Direct Bill revocations arising from billing report errors. Reinstatement of our Direct Bill Partner status, given that Microsoft has already formally acknowledged in writing that the root cause was an internal reporting error. Assignment of a named owner with authority to drive this to closure — not another ticket transfer into a queue. A broader note for Microsoft and the community In the past several weeks, multiple partners have posted here about erroneous or unexplained Direct Bill terminations. ShayD 's thread (resolved after Microsoft formally acknowledged the termination notice was sent in error), @swathen's thread (revenue classification / visibility gap causing an eligibility review failure despite provable revenue), and ElDani 's thread (Direct Bill account suddenly suspended April 1, 2026 — same date as ours) all share meaningful structural similarities with our case. Our situation makes at least the fourth public report of a similar pattern within roughly the last two months. I'm raising it here not to escalate emotionally, but because it genuinely seems worth Microsoft's internal attention that this may be a systemic issue in the billing classification or partner status pipeline, rather than a set of unrelated isolated cases. If anyone at Microsoft is tracking this pattern internally, our case is one more data point and we'd welcome being part of whatever review is happening. Any Microsoft employee who can help route this to the right team, or any partners who have successfully navigated a similar situation, please reach out. Full case documentation — including Microsoft's written acknowledgment, the complete chronological case history, and supporting materials — is available on request through direct message. Thank you for reading.
URGENT: CSP Direct Bill Termination due to Revenue Discrepancy / Visibility Gap Support Exhausted
We’re currently working through a CSP Direct Bill eligibility review and have run into a discrepancy that we’re hoping other partners may have experience with. Our organization has been operating under CSP Direct Bill and, based on Partner Center indicators and prior guidance from Microsoft, we believed we were meeting the ~$1M TTM revenue requirement. However, we were recently informed by Microsoft that our Direct Bill revenue is being calculated at approximately $892K, below the threshold. The key issue appears to be related to revenue classification: Microsoft indicated that some of our revenue may be attributed to CSP Indirect Reseller (IR), even though we do not actively transact through a distributor. All licensing is billed directly by Microsoft, and we can provide invoices to support this. We’ve also been told that when tenants are associated with both Direct Bill and Indirect models, the 12-month revenue breakdown is not visible in Partner Center. Microsoft has acknowledged that this visibility gap exists and that partners cannot currently see the same classification used internally. Our case is currently under review with Microsoft, but we’re trying to better understand: Has anyone encountered a situation where tenants were classified as indirect without actively selling through a distributor? Are there any reliable ways to identify which customers or subscriptions may be tagged as indirect? Has anyone successfully reconciled or corrected this type of revenue classification issue? Any insights or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated, especially if you’ve navigated this during a Direct Bill eligibility review. Thanks in advance.
Microsoft SMB Copilot Bundles — CSP Partners Undercut on Pricing. Are Others Experiencing This?
I want to raise something that's creating real problems for us as a CSP partner, and I suspect we're not alone. Microsoft recently launched the SMB Copilot Business bundles — including a M365 Business Premium + Copilot Business bundle at 25% off. Great initiative. The problem? Through eCommerce (direct), customers can purchase this bundle from 1 seat. Through CSP, the bundle has a 10-seat minimum. This is causing a very specific and common issue: we have customers with well over 10 seats on Business Premium who want to trial Copilot with a small group first — say 3 to 8 users — before committing to a wider rollout. That's a completely reasonable approach. But because CSP enforces a 10-seat minimum on the bundle, we can't offer them the discounted pricing for a small initial rollout. Meanwhile, they can see that if they went direct with Microsoft, they'd get 25% off from just 1 seat. The result? Our customers are asking us why we — their trusted Microsoft Partner — are charging them more than Microsoft itself. Some are outright accusing us of trying to rip them off. These aren't micro-businesses slipping through the cracks. These are established customers with legitimate deployments who simply want to pilot Copilot sensibly before scaling up. We've raised this with Microsoft and the justification we received boils down to: the direct channel serves even the smallest customers, while CSP requires a 10-seat minimum to "ensure sufficient scale and support for partner-led deals" and to "protect partner business interests." With respect, this doesn't protect our interests at all. It actively undermines them. Here's what's actually happening: • Customers who want to trial Copilot on a handful of seats see a better deal going direct and question why they're paying a partner at all • It erodes trust in the partner relationship — the very thing Microsoft says it wants to strengthen • It creates an incentive for customers to move licensing to the direct channel for the trial, fragmenting their management and making our job harder • We're left in the impossible position of either absorbing margin to match the direct price, or losing the customer's confidence • Ironically, it discourages the very Copilot adoption Microsoft is pushing — customers who would happily trial on a few seats are put off by being told they need to commit to 10 or more through us We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for parity. If Microsoft believes 25% off is the right price for this bundle, let us offer it to our customers too — regardless of how many seats they want to start with. We're the ones providing the onboarding, the training, the support, and the ongoing management. We shouldn't be penalised for it. Is anyone else running into this with customers who want to trial Copilot on fewer than 10 seats? How are you handling the conversation when they come to you asking why Microsoft is cheaper direct? Would love to hear how others are navigating this, and whether there's any appetite to push back on this collectively.