- About Us
- Practice Areas
- Our Clients
- Law Library
- Contact Us
After what seems like an eternity, the FTC has issued guidance to multilevel marketing (MLM) companies. As guidance, the document issued on January 4, 2018 does not carry the force of law, but is instead intended to help MLMs to “apply core consumer protection principles to their business practices.” The guidance itself is a series of questions followed by the FTC’s answers, purportedly designed to help MLM companies adhere to the said core consumer protection principles. To view the actual guidance document, click here.
Those who were hoping that this long-awaited guidance would provide objectively measurable guideposts to MLM companies will be sorely disappointed; and those who are familiar with the legal issues confronting MLMs will find much that there is really nothing new in the guidance. For example, in response to the ultimate question “How does the FTC distinguish between MLMs with lawful and unlawful compensation structures?”, the guidance pretty much tells us what we have always known:
Network marketing is in the midst of a rapidly advancing Orwellian era. It’s been slow to develop, starting in 1996 when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Webster v. Omnitrition, but it’s snowballed in the past two years. Today the snowball grew exponentially with the announcement that the Federal Trade Commission and Herbalife have reached a settlement agreement.
Watch for detailed updates and analysis on the settlement. We’ll break it down into many little pieces to determine how it will impact your business. But today we just have time for a broad sweep so I’m just going to address some critical topics.
The obvious first question is: “Does this settlement affect my business?” It’s certainly an important question. After all, the FTC was investigating Herbalife and analyzing Herbalife’s program, so why should it apply to any other company? The answer is two-fold. There’s the technically correct answer, and the real-world practical answer. The technically correct answer is that the FTC settlement with Herbalife has no binding impact on any other network marketing business. The real-world answer is quite different. The changes that Herbalife must implement offer a clear roadmap to the standards that the FTC expects all direct sellers to conform, and those are the standards that it will pursue in future cases against direct sellers.
There’s no law that requires direct selling companies to adhere to all of requirements in the Herbalife settlement. But those who stick their head in the sand and ignore the messages in the Herbalife settlement agreement do so at great peril. By now you’re certainly wondering what the settlement agreement requires. Here’s a high level summary of the most critical issues that will impact every network marketing program:
Note: See an overview of how this settlement affects network marketers, and watch out blog for detailed analysis and updates.
Herbalife International of America, Inc., Herbalife International, Inc., and Herbalife, Ltd. will restructure their U.S. multi-level marketing business operations and pay $200 million to compensate consumers to settle the FTC complaint that the Herbalife companies deceived consumers into believing they could earn substantial money their products.
The FTC complaint also charged that Herbalife’s compensation structure was unfair because it distributors were rewarded for recruiting others to join and purchase products in order to advance in the MLM program, as opposed to actual retail demand for the product, causing economic injury to many distributors.
The U.S. District Court in Arizona just released its order on the Vemma TRO/asset freeze and receivership. Here’s the quick summary, but the analysis has many angles and moving parts that invite much analysis and interpretation.
- The Temporary Restraining Order. The court found that there is a substantial likelihood that Vemma was running a pyramid scheme. However, the court also found that there were parts of Vemma’s business that were being operated legitimately. Therefore, the court amended the TRO and allowed Vemma to continue to operate those parts of its business that were being run legitimately, but enjoined Vemma from engaging in those practices that it viewed as illegal. As it relates to Vemma’s sales and compensation program, the court enjoined Vemma from incentivizing distributors to buy products to become eligible, or maintain eligibility, for compensation rather than for resale or personal use. (Emphasis added – this is HUGE!). This is seemingly contradicted by another statement in which the court prohibits Vemma from paying compensation related to the sale of products unless the majority of compensation is derived from sales to buyers who are not members of the Marketing Program. (Emphasis added).
- Vemma remains enjoined from paying commissions on the sale of Affiliate Packs and on the sale of products to distributors if such sales accumulate sales volume that qualifies the purchasing distributor for compensation. This provision directly impacts Vemma’s autoship program; we will analyze this in much greater detail in upcoming analyses.
- The Asset Freeze. Vemma’s assets and the personal assets of the defendants are unfrozen. The court found that the FTC did not present sufficient evidence that the assets were at risk of being dissipated.
- The Receivership. The court found that because Vemma is prohibited from engaging in illegal practices, it was unnecessary to have the business run by the receiver. However, the court recognized that Vemma had engaged in numerous illegal actions, so it re-cast the receiver as a court appointed monitor to oversee the defendants’ management and operation of the business. This is a significant step as it puts Vemma’s management back in charge of the company. Of course, the problem is that the company is a mere shell of its former self since the receiver fired most of its employees.
We’re expecting the court’s decision today in the Vemma action on whether the Federal Trade Commission’s temporary restraining order will be lifted, modified, or remain in place in the form of an injunction. There are MANY lessons to be learned from the FTC’s action, and we will be addressing them one-by-one in the coming weeks, so stay tuned. (Note: The order from the hearing is here.)
But as we wait for the immediate outcome, one thing of which we can be certain is that if the court completely lifts the TRO (highly unlikely), Vemma as we know it is done. The FTC’s favorite receiver did such a hatchet-job on the company that he killed it long before Vemma saw the light of the court room. Employees were dismissed within days after the raid, and while Vemma certainly had a cadre of loyal distributors, many more have departed given the specter of the FTC’s action.
The FTC recently announced that it has finalized the amendments to the Federal Cooling-Off Rule, (aka Door-to-Door Sales Rule). The amended Rule will go into effect on March 13. When the proposed amendment was published, there was some anticipation on the part of the direct selling industry that sellers would be granted some relief from the Rule.
For those not familiar, the Rule requires that customers (including new distributors or consultants) be given two copies of the 3-day Notice of Right to Cancel whenever a purchase transaction for consumer goods or services takes place at a location other than the seller’s place of business. While there are some possible exemptions, for the most part the rule covered many transactions between distributors and their customers and between distributors and their newly recruited distributors.
John Matthew Dwyer III, the former CEO of HealthyLife Sciences, LLC, has agreed to be banned from manufacturing or marketing weight loss products as part of a settlement of FTC charges of deceptive advertising. A separate settlement bans HealthyLife Sciences from advertising that its products cause weight loss.
U.S. District Senior Judge Charles Pannell Jr. has ordered the CEO and senior vice president of Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. be jailed for contempt of court for failing to recall four dietary supplements as directed by a May, 2014 judgment that found them in violation of a 2008 court order. The May, 2014 judgment also ordered them to pay more than $40 million for violating the 2008 order.
The May order directed an immediate recall of four dietary supplement products, Fastin, Lipodrene, Benzedrine and Stimerex-ES. However, the Judge Pannell found that the defendants, CEO Jared Wheat and Stephen Smith, senior vice president in charge of sales, have not complied with the recall order.
i-Health, Inc. and Martek Biosciences Corporation have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they used deceptive advertising in marketing their BrainStrong Adult dietary supplement. The FTC complaint alleged that the supplement makers claimed BrainStrong improves adult memory and prevents cognitive decline, and that they falsely claimed they had clinical proof for the claims.
Television commercials for BrainStrong Adult showed a forgetful woman and a voiceover saying, “Need a memory boost? Introducing BrainStrong…Clinically shown to improve adult memory.” In addition to television, the product was advertised on Twitter and brainstrongdha.com.
The marketers of the fruit drink Nopalea have agreed to pay $3.5 million in consumer refunds to settle FTC charges that they deceptively marketed the product as scientifically proven to reduce various ailments, including pain. The marketers named in the FTC complaint are dietary supplement maker TriVita, Inc., Ellison Media Company, and Michael R. and Susan R. Ellison, who control both companies.
The FTC’s complaint alleged that TruVita did not have the clinical studies to support the claims they were making about the health benefits of Nopalea, a fruit drink derived the nopal cactus, also know as the prickly pear. Nopalea cost up to $39.99 for a 32-ounce bottle.