I am posting this from a separate seller account because I am genuinely concerned that publicly criticizing the moderation system could put the primarily affected account at additional risk.
The affected portfolio also belongs to me. That account has now experienced two waves of mass suspensions, including 14 models suspended simultaneously. The only model published on this account was suspended as well, meaning the automated action removed 100% of this account’s portfolio from sale.
CGTrader, this is no longer simply a content moderation issue. It is a serious failure of the entire moderation and appeal process.
During the first wave, several of my models were suspended at the same time. After contacting support, I was informed that the automated scanner had been applied too broadly. The affected models were later restored.
That should have been the end of the problem.
Instead, the same thing has now happened again, on an even larger scale. This time, 13 models from my main portfolio were suspended at once, including models that had already been restored after the previous incorrect automated review.
This means the underlying problem was never actually fixed. Only the consequences of the first failure were temporarily reversed.
The new answer from support is that sellers must now appeal every suspended model individually using the Appeal button, wait up to five business days, and accept that if the suspension is upheld, the decision is final.
Support also states that it cannot review or act on suspension appeals through email or support tickets.
This is not an adequate solution.
The current process appears to work like this:
1. An automated system can suspend many products instantly.
2. Those products immediately stop generating sales.
3. The seller must manually appeal every product one by one.
4. The seller then waits several business days while losing income.
5. No exact violating image, file, pose, or element is identified.
6. Support refuses to investigate or correct the suspension directly.
7. If the appeal is rejected, the decision is final.
8. Nothing prevents restored models from being suspended again during the next automated review.
In other words, the automated system acts immediately, while creators must spend days correcting its mistakes.
Creators are effectively being used as unpaid quality assurance testers for an automated moderation tool.
There is another deeply concerning part of the new appeal process.
Before submitting an appeal, the seller must confirm that the model does not violate the policy and acknowledge that submitting a “false appeal” may affect the status of the entire account.
However, CGTrader does not explain what exactly constitutes a false appeal.
A knowingly dishonest appeal is one thing. A good-faith disagreement with a vague and subjective interpretation of terms such as “suggestive,” “provocative,” or “implied nudity” is something entirely different.
A rejected appeal must not automatically be treated as a false appeal.
Under the current process:
* the automated system suspends a product without identifying the exact violating image or element;
* the seller cannot properly understand what triggered the decision;
* the seller is allowed only one appeal;
* the result is final;
* and the seller is simultaneously warned that appealing may affect the status of the entire account.
This creates an obvious chilling effect.
Sellers may be afraid to challenge even clear false positives because the platform implies that doing so could place their entire account and business at risk.
CGTrader is effectively asking sellers to guarantee that their interpretation of an unclear policy will match the final interpretation of an undisclosed reviewer.
That is not a fair requirement.
CGTrader should clearly define:
* what qualifies as a false appeal;
* whether a rejected appeal is considered false;
* what consequences may be applied to the account;
* whether those consequences apply only to knowingly deceptive appeals;
* and how sellers can challenge genuine automated errors without risking their entire business.
A good-faith appeal against an automated false positive must never be treated as misconduct.
The explanation that these changes are driven by Google and other external platforms does not answer the actual problem.
Even if CGTrader is required to apply stricter rules to adult or suggestive material, the method of implementation is CGTrader’s responsibility.
Google did not choose to:
* suspend 13 of my products simultaneously;
* repeatedly suspend models that had already been restored;
* suspend 100% of the portfolio on another account;
* provide no exact reason for each individual suspension;
* remove products from sale while appeals are pending;
* require a separate appeal for every false positive;
* prevent support from reviewing obvious mass errors;
* warn sellers that appealing may affect their account status;
* make a rejected decision final;
* or remove the seller’s access to uploaded product files.
CGTrader made those choices.
CGTrader already has an Adult Content visibility system. Models can be hidden from external visitors or displayed only to users who allow adult content.
That is completely different from suspending a product and removing it from sale.
If a model merely requires an Adult Content label, why is it suspended instead of being classified appropriately?
Why are fully clothed characters, male characters, character collections, clothing, anatomical objects, and other ordinary products being suspended under a policy supposedly targeting explicit and suggestive material?
This discussion already contains reports of absurd false positives involving clothing, a neuron, a skull bracelet, and even a frog catching a fly.
These are not subtle disagreements about artistic boundaries. They demonstrate that the system cannot reliably understand context.
There is also a serious issue regarding access to creators’ files.
When one of my models is suspended, I lose access to the product and its uploaded files through my seller account.
What happens if an appeal is rejected and the decision becomes final?
Will the creator still be allowed to download the original files, textures, previews, descriptions, and other materials they uploaded?
Will CGTrader provide a one-time export?
Or will the platform continue storing those files while denying their creator access to them?
CGTrader does not become the owner of an artist’s intellectual property merely because the artist uploaded it to the marketplace.
A suspension may justify removing a listing from public sale, but it should not prevent the creator from retrieving their own work.
There is also a contradiction that requires clarification.
CGTrader’s published General Terms state that when a product is removed, sellers may submit a motivated appeal within 30 days by contacting support, and that CGTrader will review the appeal and communicate its decision within 15 days.
Support is now telling sellers that email and support tickets cannot initiate or affect an appeal, that only the Appeal button may be used, that reviews take five business days, and that the result is final.
Which procedure is actually valid?
Why were the published Terms not updated before this new system was imposed on sellers?
I am not asking for special treatment, and I am not arguing that genuinely explicit or prohibited content should never be moderated.
I am asking for a functional, transparent, proportionate, and fair process.
CGTrader should:
* immediately pause mass automated suspensions until the false-positive problem is fixed;
* restore products affected by obvious mass moderation errors pending manual review;
* provide a bulk appeal option when many products are suspended simultaneously;
* identify the exact image, file, pose, or element that triggered each suspension;
* ensure that restored models are not automatically suspended again for the same reason;
* allow support staff to escalate and correct obvious system-wide errors;
* guarantee sellers access to download their own uploaded files regardless of listing status;
* clearly define what constitutes a false appeal;
* confirm that rejected good-faith appeals will not damage account status;
* publish clear and consistently applied content standards;
* clarify the contradiction between the current appeal system and the published Terms;
* and provide sellers with advance notice and a transition period when major policies are applied retroactively.
Artists and sellers cannot build a reliable business on a marketplace where years of work can disappear overnight because of an automated false positive, while the only response is:
“Appeal every model individually, accept the risk to your account, and wait.”
A marketplace cannot demand responsibility from its sellers while refusing to take responsibility for its own moderation system.
