Lawsuit reveals Clayton Sampson’s EnvyTV fraud
A lawsuit filed against Clayton Sampson, aka Clay Sampson, has revealed behind-the-scenes fraud at EnvyTV.
EnvyTV was a pirated content streaming MLM company Sampson launched in 2019.
In November 2020 husband-and-wife Plaintiffs Mary Jane Beauregard and John Hugh Smith, filed suit against defendants:
- Clayton Sampson
- Elisha Sampson
- Envy TV and
- Envy Solutions
Citing Clayton and Elisha (right) as “majority owners and co-managers of EnvyTV, Beauregard and Smith allege they were duped into investing in EnvyTV.
In December 2018, the Sampsons were seeking investors in EnvyTV.
The Sampsons knew the Plaintiffs through a mutual acquaintance, Eddie Freeman, and due to their parties’ involvement in another network marketing company.
Freeman (right) was cited as an EnvyTV co-founder on the company’s website at launch.
The Sampsons promised and represented to Plaintiffs that if they invested $100,000, in exchange they and Mr. Freeman would receive a 2% interest in EnvyTV plus advanced “master” Affiliate positions in the EnvyTV Affiliate multilevel hierarchy.
Breaking down the legal speak, the Sampsons were selling a top position in EnvyTV’s compensation for $100,000.
Of note is Beauregard and Smith (right) claiming Freeman assigned them his “1% interest in EnvyTV and all claims related to [his] 1% ownership interest” in May 2020.
In reliance upon the Sampsons’ representations, Plaintiffs paid the Sampsons $100,000 via wire transfer on December 14, 2018.
Following their investment, Plaintiffs were placed at advanced “master” Affiliate positions in the EnvyTV Affiliate multilevel hierarchy as promised by the Sampsons.
Plaintiff Smith was placed at a 5th position (#10008) and Beauregard was placed at a 6th level position (#100007).
In the EnvyTV hierarchy, all new Affiliates were to be placed under the Plaintiffs’ 5th and 6th level Affiliate positions.
This would ensure that Plaintiffs financially benefited from the sales of other EnvyTV Affiliates as the EnvyTV Affiliate grew began to grow [sic].
Beauregard and Smith claim they were “instrumental” in “building” EnvyTV. Corey Sampson however didn’t see it that way.
Several months following Plaintiffs’ investment in EnvyTV, Defendant Clayton Sampson became unhappy with Plaintiffs because he did not think they were enrolling enough new Affiliates into the EnvyTV multi-level program.
Due to Defendant Clayton Sampsons’ belief … Clayton and Elisha Sampson began manipulating the EnvyTV compensation plan and moving the Plaintiffs’ master Affiliate positions to reduce the commissions paid to Plaintiffs.
As a result, the commissions paid to Plaintiffs were far less than what they were entitled to receive from the master positions they acquired in connection with their $100,000 payment to the Sampson Defendants.
Beauregard and Smith claim their EnvyTV commissions ceased entirely in “early March 2020 … without any prior written notice or communication”.
Beauregard and Smith allege that, despite paying $100,000 to the Sampsons, they
never intended to sell a 2% interest in EnvyTV when they solicited $100,000 from Plaintiffs in December 2018.
Today EnvyTV doesn’t exist. Perusal of Clayton Sampson’s social media reveals he’s promoting something called EnvySolutions.
Beauregard and Smith claim EnvySolutions is effectively EnvyTV by another name.
The Sampson Defendants’ efforts to deny Plaintiffs’ ownership rights in EnvyTV is further confirmed by the now defunct status of EnvyTV and the concurrent rise of Defendant EnvySolutions, a functionally identical entity engaged in the same business as EnvyTV.
EnvySolutions was formed in January 2020, just as the Sampson Defendants were beginning to demote and manipulate the Plaintiff’s Affiliate positions and EnvyTV commission payments.
Sampson is the President of EnvySolutions and the services and Affiliate compensation plan offered by EnvySolutions are strikingly similar to those offered by EnvyTV.
It appears that the Sampson Defendants have recreated the business of EnvyTV through EnvySolutions as another way to cut the Plaintiffs out of the business they invested in.
A visit to EnvySolutions’ website reveals a “join us” message but no further details (or way to actually join the company):
Regardless of the current status of EnvySolutions, Beauregard and Smith allege the Sampsons’ conduct constitutes “a breach of their fiduciary duties”.
Specifically, across eleven causes of action, Beauregard and Smith accused the Sampsons of:
- breach of contract;
- fraud;
- fraud by non-disclosure;
- breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy;
- violating the Nevada Uniform Securities Act; and
- breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
The case went to bench trial in January 2024. The case was decided in favor of Plaintiffs Beauregard and Smith on January 31st, 2024.
The Sampsons appealed the judgment in February 2024. The Ninth circuit dismissed the appeal in May 2024.
Default judgment was granted against the Sampson and EnvyTV defendants on September 23rd, 2024.
The judgment order awarded Beauregard and Smith with:
- $100,000 in consideration paid
- $28,876.71 in interest
- $15,679.13 in costs
- $301,103.75 in attorneys’ fees
- $284,717.28 in compensatory damages for unpaid commissions
- $63,393.60 in interest on awarded compensatory damages
- $8175 in arbitration costs and
- $8500 for “discovery abuse”
An addition to all that an award of punitive damages remains outstanding. The court has scheduled a hearing punitive hearing for February 11th, 2025.
