ACCC Lyoness case update: Discovery & June hearing
In late August 2014, almost a year ago now, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued Lyoness for being a pyramid scheme.
To date updates on the progress of the case have been scarce, so today we’re taking a look at where things are currently at.
What we already know is that the ACCC’s case against Lyoness primarily revolves around the Accounting Units (AUs), specifically whether or not the AU component of Lyoness compensation plan constitutes a pyramid scheme.
BehindMLM reviewed Lyoness back in May 2012 and concluded that ROIs paid out once enough new AU investment was made constituted a Ponzi scheme.
To that end a Directions Hearing was held in late February, ordering requested discovery to be provided no later than the 11th of May 2015.
I’m not entirely sure why, but a second hearing pertaining to discovery was then held on April 9th.
In this order Lyoness was again ordered to hand over discovery.
Below you’ll find the items requested, with commentary included under each sub-header (final thoughts at the bottom of the article).
Establishing who the top Australian Lyoness affiliates are/were
Here we have a number of discovery items requested, which aim to establish who the top players in Lyoness’s Australian business operations are (or were if they’ve since left).
There’s a particular emphasis on business activity dating as far back as 2011, which I believe is due to Lyoness claiming they had no business operations in Australia until 2012 (I’m not 100% sure on that).
- documents relating to the migration of Australian residents from the MLM opportunity operated by Lyoness UK to the MLM opportunity in Australia by Lyoness Asia
- a “full overview” of Lyoness affiliate accounts belonging to Margot Edwina Rylah, John Raemond Neill, Teri Ann Bartolo, Gayle Vivienne Roberts, Trevor Alric Deutsher and Shannon Angela Friedman from the date each became a Member to the present date
- a copy of each version of any terms and conditions that have applied to the relationship between any Lyoness entity and any member of the Lyoness Loyalty Program, or the UK Lyoness Program, resident in Australia from November 2011 to date
- all documents relating to anyone or more of Andy Hansen, Wendy Hansen, Phil Watts or Sally Watts recruiting individuals in Australia in the period September 2011 to March 2012 as Members of the UK Lyoness Program
- the promotion in the period September 2011 to April 2012 to people in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including promotion of the UK Lyoness Program) through the conduct of webinars as alleged in paragraph 45 of the Statement of Claim by anyone or more of Andy Hansen, Wendy Hansen, Phil Watts or Sally Watts
- any failure to comply with any restriction or requirement on one or more of Andy Hansen, Wendy Hansen, Phil Watts or Sally Watts by the UK Lyoness Program in connection with promotion in the period in or about late 2011 to early 2012 to people in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program
- All records of recommendations of the UK Lyoness Program made by Andy Hansen, Wendy Hansen, Phil Watts or Sally Watts as alleged in paragraph 45(f) of the Defence
Point 6 is particularly interesting, as it suggests the ACCC have documented breaches of Lyoness’ affiliate Terms and Conditions.
Given Andy Hansen’s promotional activities of Lyoness in Australia at the time were public, I think the ACCC are making sure Lyoness can’t claim ignorance of Hansen’s actions (in one way or another, marketing Lyoness as an AU investment scheme).
They’re then innocently querying whether Lyoness took any appropriate action against Hansen, failing which they can be seen as endorsing his actions (ie. Lyoness can’t throw him under the bus and have to take responsibility).
Legitimacy of claimed “merchant agreements”
- each Merchant Agreement alleged in paragraph 9 of the Defence
- any Loyalty Merchant Agreement between a Lyoness Entity and Woolworths
- any Loyalty Merchant Agreement between a Lyoness Entity and Harvey Norman
- any Loyalty Merchant Agreement between a Lyoness Entity and Coles
I can almost guarantee you the ACCC would have approached the above major retailers as part of their pre-trial investigation.
Either the ACCC are fully aware the agreements represented by Lyoness in their defence are baloney, or they’re looking to compare the agreements Lyoness provide them with statements from the retailers claiming otherwise.
Also if any such agreements were fleshed out, naturally why they were discontinued will also be scrutinized.
AU investment revenue generated versus that through shopping
The pseudo-compliance component of Lyoness is that shopping generates AUs. That much is true but it’s widely believed that AU investment dwarfs any shopping activity.
To that end the ACCC have requested a ton of discovery that will clearly lay out (specific to Australia) AU revenue via shopping versus that of direct investment (downpayment).
- the record of allocation of Units in any Accounting Category by any Lyoness Entity for the benefit of any Australian resident when becoming a Premium Member including participants in the UK Lyoness Program
- records of the amount of Cash Back, Direct Friendship Bonus, Indirect Friendship Bonus and Loyalty Benefits credited to the accounts of Australian Members with Lyoness Asia as a result of making any purchases made with merchants in countries other than Australia (November 2011 to November 2014)
- documents which contain information about the volume of Down Payments made by Members in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including Members of the UK Lyoness Program who or which were migrated to the Lyoness Loyalty Program operated by Lyoness Asia in Australia) in each month commencing from November 2011
- documents which contain information about the volume of shopping, not including Down Payments, by Members in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including Members of the UK Lyoness Program who or which were migrated to the Lyoness Loyalty Program operated by Lyoness Asia in Australia) in each month commencing from November 2011
- documents which contain information about the volume of Loyalty Benefits accruing to Members in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including Members of the UK Lyoness Program who or which were migrated to the Lyoness Loyalty Program operated by Lyoness Asia in Australia) as a result of Down Payments made by Members Down Line from the beneficiaries of those Loyalty Benefits in each month commencing from November 2011
- documents which contain information about the volume of Loyalty Benefits accruing to Members in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including Members of the UK Lyoness Program who or which were migrated to the Lyoness Loyalty Program operated by Lyoness Asia in Australia) as a result of shopping, not including Down Payments, conducted by Members Down Line from the beneficiaries of those Loyalty Benefits in each month commencing from November 2011
- documents which contain information about the volume of Loyalty Benefits accruing to Members in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including Members of the UK Lyoness Program who or which were migrated to the Lyoness Loyalty Program operated by Lyoness Asia in Australia) as a result of Down Payments made by Members Down Line from the beneficiaries of those Loyalty Benefits in each month commencing from November 2011
- documents which contain information about the volume of Loyalty Benefits accruing to Members in Australia of the Lyoness Loyalty Program (including Members of the UK Lyoness Program who or which were migrated to the Lyoness Loyalty Program operated by Lyoness Asia in Australia) as a result of shopping, not including Down Payments, conducted by Members Down Line from the beneficiaries of those Loyalty Benefits in each month commencing from November 2011
I don’t know if we’ll eventually get access to the data (via final judgement or otherwise), but it sure would make for an interesting read.
Determining who holds more AUs, affiliate investors or non-affiliate shopping members
Another aspect of the shopping network’s pseudo-compliance is to mostly ignore (not talk about) the ratio of AUs as a result of investment versus shopping.
- record or records of a person resident in Australia becoming a member of the Lyoness loyalty program in Australia or the UK Lyoness program on or before 25 April 2012 without that person making a down payment
- record or records of a person becoming a Premium Member of the Lyoness loyalty program in Australia on or after 26 April 2012 without that person making a down payment
- All documents relating to any person in Australia becoming a Premium Member by purchasing goods or services from Loyalty Merchants with a gross sales price of not less than $30,000 within 12 months
The above items of discovery will conclusively lay out how many AUs were generating via shopping, versus that via direct investment (downpayments).
Existing investor incentives
As Lyoness moves from country to country, investors in other countries where recruitment has stalled are given priorty in investing in new markets.
Information pertaining to Australian Lyoness affiliates participating in such activity has been requested:
- documents evidencing any opportunity to acquire Units in the Lyoness Accounting Program of other countries, through the making of Down Payments, as offered by Lyoness Australia to Members in Australia
Effectively Lyoness kickstart the AU ROIs by pre-loading new countries they expand into with funds from existing investors.
They then fly a few of these affiliates in, they harp on about their commissions and that’s usually enough to kickstart some leaders into spreading Lyoness locally.
When things eventually slow down there, the company moves into a new country and the process is repeated.
Thoughts
A number of items are marked “[not pressed]” on the list, supporting Lyoness having objected to the ACCC’s request of the above items.
What these items were isn’t clear, but the ACCC have decided it was a fair enough call to omit them from a revised discovery list upon challenge.
Meanwhile why they might have taken issue with the requests is because the information requested is quite specific to the AU investment scheme.
More to the point, it will likely fully expose the AU investment scheme to have been the main source of revenue from November 2011 to 2014.
It will also likely reveal that AU ROIs paid out, were by and large a result of subsequent AUs generated via direct investment as opposed to shopping activity.
None of which will aid Lyoness in defending against the case in court.
Looking at the list again, it’s pretty clear to me that the ACCC have done their homework on this one and know exactly what they’re doing. They’re asking all the right questions and focusing on exactly what needs to be focused on.
Whereas Lyoness have previously overwhelmed regulators with marketing material in an attempt to fend off regulatory litigation, thankfully that doesn’t appear to have worked with the ACCC.
This is going to trial and it’s going to get messy.
Court records indicate Lyoness provided the requested discovery on the 18th, 19th and 20th of May.
Another Directions Hearing has been scheduled for the 11th of June, in which any outstanding discovery issues (information provided not complete or not what was asked for etc.) will be addressed.
On the other hand if discovery is all good, we might then get a tentative trial date scheduled (not likely to be anytime soon, as the ACCC have to be given time to go through the requested discovery and adequately prepare the case for trial).
Stay tuned…
@oz
under the heading “AU investment revenue generated versus that through shopping”, point 3&4 are repeated in point 5&6.
according to wiki:
from the above norway cleared lyoness from pyramiding in 2014, and it was allowed to continue.
sweden and poland called off the investigation for ‘lack of evidence’. lyoness works through a labyrinth of companies, and it may not be possible to collect records for lyoness’s activities.
some action in austria continues but information about it is not public, and what happened in hungary, only hungary knows.
what we have left is australia and its ACCC.
the ACCC picks it’s cases carefully and almost always wins. but i dont see the trial commencing before next year, with discovery still in process and all the time required by ACCC to prepare its case.
apparently hungary fined lyoness for misleading advertising.
what’s with european countries and lyoness? the lyoness model is as obvious as day!
gvh.hu/sajtoszoba/sajtokozlemenyek/2013-as_sajtokozlemenyek/8506_hu_megteveszto_lyoness_reklamok_miatt_birsagolt_a_gvh.html
Oops, thanks for catching that.
The Ponzi scheme isn’t very clear. Ponzi schemes promise to pay out profits based on the invested money, but Lyoness doesn’t pay out any profit that way in the first set of matrices. It pays money to people in upline, but it doesn’t pay anything to the investor.
The pyramid scheme is clearer. People pay for multiple positions in matrices. They will earn a profit first after they have managed to recruit 4 other investors, and those 4 have recruited some, all buying some positions.
Any other “profit” will not really be a profit, it will be a payout of discounts they have earned themselves through their own shopping.
The pyramid scheme is difficult to prove because of the complexity of the scheme, e.g. the down payment investments are paid to Lyoness in a different country / jurisdiction, multiple matrices, reinvestments in other matrices / jurisdictions, complicated payouts where payouts will originate from multiple positions belonging to multiple people and multiple sources.
People seem to forget that a court or an authority can’t simply analyse a compensation plan and draw a conclusion. They must analyse the economic realities of the business based on facts (accounting, contracts, etc.).
A wise thing to do could be to get an injunction from a court, ordering Lyoness to clearly keep track of different types of transactions related to the individual country, to avoid misleading information where Lyoness have mixed in other countries as part of its documentation.
Eric Breiteneder decided to avoid pointing to the pyramid scheme issue. He focused on more easy to prove consumer protection factors.
As far I know polish invetigation is still going and in Austria there are class action, criminal case and regulatory precedings going.
i’m not entirely sure about poland because i read somewhere they haven’t found enough evidence on lyoness, i may be wrong.
on austria i found some latest info as of march, 2015.
we know that the commercial court found in favor of VKI [Austrian Association for Consumer Information], in that lyoness’ clauses in its distributor agreements were unlawful. lyoness has appealed this decision, and a final judgment may only come by 2016.
this win by the VKI, has triggered further civil action against lyoness. a litigation funder firm called Advofin, has offered to litigate for the over 6000 reps in austria.
they have set up a website for lyoness reps to contact them at and will cover reps across EU. the damages to lyoness could amount to euro 2 billion. lyoness could be forced to a standstill via civil action alone, by making it bankrupt!
as for the criminal investigation into lyoness in austria, it is still continuing :
obtainer-online.com/news/en/lyoness-case–austrian-association-for-consumer-information-vki-and-litigation-funders-advofin-join-a-common-cause.html
Lyoness has always been “Look here! No, here here! Not there here!” defense.
Kinda makes you wonder why don’t they just go “legit” if their sales network is so f***ing “mutually beneficial” to the merchants and the users, eh?
It was in Sweden, however their regulator appealed from this decision so higher prosecutor instance took the case over.
In Poland we are still waiting for any OCCP conclusion.
I was sent a link to this site (Ozedit: link removed)
Where the guy goes on and on about how the lyoness isn’t a scam.
There is no referral link in it but clearly it is biased on saying it isn’t scheme in anyway.
Has anyone else seen this piece of crap?
That’s a reincarnation of that shill site that was doing the rounds a few years back (credits the original spam site in the opening sentence).
Purportedly written by someone in South Africa “doing research for a friend”, obviously written by a Lyoness affiliate. The site died out when Lyoness recruitment in South Africa ground to a halt.
Doesn’t address the AU investment scheme so link removed (waffle = spam).
heres a footage from polish Lyoness crosline leader training,and his advice on how to deal with new recruits is to tell them they can sign up Premiums after becoming one only.
youtube.com/watch?v=doFQN8bLGDk
“I’m repeating only what was adviced by mr. Mario Kapun as effective and proven way [of luring new people into Lyoness]” in 5:06 .
you can google translate what he says here:
antylyoness.blox.pl/2014/08/Grupa-Lyoness-Koszalin-twoje-poufne-dane-na.html#comment-13358128
posts 43 to 47 😉
BTW, does enyone recognize Erric Worre, Las Vegas Sensation 2015 speaker? Who’s that guy? Another successfull MLM milionaire? Or kinda Troy Dooly?
I can see Lyoness sells his GO PRO audiobooks to Lyconet Marketers for almost triple price than Amazon, and this is exclusive offer for Lyconet Marketers who benefit most 🙂
comfort_eagle: Eric Worre is a 30+ year veteran of the MLM world and is touted as one of the best trainers and speakers in the MLM Industry. He was, I think, on the executive board of Agel when its president got sued for breach of fiduciary duties and responsibilities. He jumped ship to Send Out Cards. This was back in 2010, so not sure if I remember this correctly or not.
Those in the MLM industry hold him up as one of the greatest, but in my view he lost that privilege when he jumped into Send Out Cards. For someone who is so well versed and an “expert” in the MLM world, there is no way he should have joined Send Out Cards. But that’s just my opinion.
I think the Agel lawsuit is still active, but would have to check. Hope this helped.
Hearing happened yesterday. Seems to be mostly procedural but this did catch my eye:
The applicant = the ACCC.
Evidence against Lyoness??? Can’t have that submitted in court!
Next hearing might be the big one, as it’s been scheduled for July 27th and “up to five days”.
I’ve found Lyoness internal info concerning India “market opening”:
scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/1465410_1580948718826125_4848068027275373537_n.jpg?oh=712e6335bcc92acbb0b4c94880505ec9&oe=562841A5
So some mystery doc gets approval and they open up shop.
When did they began touting Lyoness in India, well over a year ago now surely?
Wonder if anyone except investors in other countries looking to “get in on the ground floor” are still interested…
I wonder how did they manage to impact wikipedia entry on Lyoness so badly, there was pretty nice resources list and quite unbiased and now all of these disappeared, so at the moment one can only read Lyoness PR bulls**t there.
The page appears to have been edited by BlackArrow.
As per the Lyoness entry talk page:
BlackArrow cited a Lyoness affiliate spam blog and simply deleted the entire pyramid scheme and controversy sections.
That BlackArrow is in Lyoness corporate or an affiliate investor is pretty much a given.
A bunch of other Lyoness investors/corporate have also been editing dating back to 2013.
A user named “metaperl” made a staggering 31 edits on June 2nd 2015 alone, removing a bunch of legitimate content in the entry.
Now all that’s left is what Lyoness corporate PR wants you to see.
The prosecutor’s decision in Sweden was appealed by the Gaming Board who launched the investigation:
lotteriinspektionen.se/sv/Press/Nyheter/Nedlagd-forundersokning-av-Lyoness-overklagas/
Thanks for that.
The appeal was filed 5 months ago, still waiting on a decision then?
Seems like. I heard rumours that the initial investigators were replaced, but I coudn’t get that confirmed so far. I’ll see what I can find out and get back.
FYI, it took many months before the investigation was started, many months before the police report was filed, etc. Bureaucracy moves slowly (or not at all).
Don’t we know it!
BTW, where did you find all this information on the case in Australia?
BTW2, Advofin (sort of a law firm from Austria), taking the recent VKI v. Lyoness decision as a foundation, recently announced to filed a class-action lawsuit against Lyoness in Amsterdam.
Apparently, there was no faith that a class-action suit would succeed in Austria. Officially, due to limited possibilities for class-actions in Austria, and many other EU countries.
wirtschaftsblatt.at/home/nachrichten/newsletter/4725368/Causa-Lyoness-VKI-und-Advofin-streben-Vergleich-in-Amsterdam-an
Been following the court case on the Fed Court of Aust. records website.
Go here – comcourts.gov.au/public/esearch, click “accept” on bottom of the page and then punch “NSD884/2014” into “file number”.
Thanks so much!
thx Oz
See the testiomony of one chap who was involved in Lyoness Australia from the beginning and decided to quit recently, he describes how bad did Lyoness with it’s members there, where no promises were kept but my favorite moment in this movie is 11:45:
youtube.com/watch?v=aV01xNflmOk&feature=youtu.be&t=704
He confirms ACCC case looks really serious and no hope last for lyo-believers there 😉
It was interesting. I watched the whole video to get the whole story, including why he joined Lyoness in the first place and how much he invested.
He invested AU$ 6,000 (2 Premium Memberships), “because his upline in the UK recommended that type of investment”. He didn’t really understand the business, but he “loved the concept” initially.
Money was sent to Austria. The paperwork was signed with an UK based Lyoness entity.
A lot of empty promises “Lyoness will launch its card based business soooon, when it has growned big enough” (I believe he was talking about “Phase 3” there).
A lot of mismanagement (in terms of business management, not in terms of scam management). So he was basically dissatisfied most of the time, but he “played along” (joined meetings and events, became an SME coach, etc.).
He had enough of Lyoness a few months after the launch of Lyconet in late 2014, “the launch of the monster”.
MY COMMENT
The sad part here is that he needed 3 years to realize that Lyoness wasn’t what it promised to be, and that it never would become it either.
This is also differen than trick I know – in Poland we had situation that downpaymets were paid by Lyoness members to polish subsidiary bank account and this was also used as an argument their money is safe.
Recently I received court sentence from one of our blog readers, who was trying to get downpeyed cash back from Lyones Poland and it turned out even though account belongs to local comlany they are not liable for anything at all.
This corporate maze of Friedl company is really unbelivable, I wonder if any authority will be able to find out whatr was cashflow there and what is lyoness charity & environmental foundations role in this swindle…
He got a court sentence … did the local company operate as an agent for Lyoness (or something similar)?
Eric Breiteneder first got a preliminary judgment (in Austrian commercial court) that Consumer Protection laws could be applied (rather than Contract Laws between businesses).
He used that method to bypass Lyoness’ Terms and Conditions, as a first step before he filed lawsuits directly against Lyoness. And then he filed multiple lawsuits over a long period of time for groups of clients. Some of those cases were settled, e.g. 75% refund to merchants was probably negotiated and settled.
And then he represented WKI consumer organization in a lawsuit against Lyoness’ Terms and Conditions. He got a judgment from the commercial court that 61 clauses in the Terms and Conditions were illegal (etc., etc., I don’t remember all the details there).
That last court decision could be appealed to a higher court, i.e. it wasn’t final the last time I checked (several months ago).
Your blog reader should probably look at those Eric Breiteneder cases. He’s the one who most closely have studied Lyoness’ legal defense system and have found a way around some of Lyoness’ defense strategies.
Once he had punched a hole in Lyoness’ defense system, it was wide open for the first lawsuits. The WKI lawsuit is simply about “making the hole bigger”, to make it easier for people to get a refund without having to go through court.
Well, this is something we were suspecting before and the court only confirmed it – Lyoness Poland is neither subsidiary, nor representative but “partner company” of Lyoness AG and no way to sue them even if money were put on their bank account.
I think it’s the same everywhere and Lyones is hidding behind the fence of swiss low.
We follow Lyoness since 2011 on our blog and know the most of what you’ve written above. Hopefully OCCP will come out with any conclusions soon, this would be the best scenario here locally…
Im in contact with the ACCC as are many other Ex Lyoness Members from the UK & USA who developed teams in Australia and the case is listed for hearing starting Monday 27th July 2015.
There were at least 3 different teams building in Australia from Sept 2011 – not sure why Hansen and Co are singled out.
The Ex-MD of the UK Operation John French was building there before them and so was Dr Rick from the USA.
I believe he should check his own ideas, e.g. “The Power Of Visualization and Positive Thinking” (June 9, 2015), “Why Do Millionaires Become Multi-Millionaires” (July 13, 2015), “Recruiting Leaders vs Creating Leaders” (July 11, 2015), and similar ideas.
That “positive thinking” idea was only harmful in this case. It made him continue in Lyoness for a too long time, denying the reality. It also made it difficult for him to produce that video.
Those “leadership” ideas and “how to become millionaire” ideas are parts of the same problem. They work better if he can get other people to believe in them and pay for them.
good good. we want hot off the pan updates from you on the hearings starting next monday!
Oh dont you worry Anjali, Will update every time we get news. Lyoness are running scared now, they are flying their Sales Director into Australia (Wernir Kaiser from Hong Kong) to do a series of meetings over the weekend leading up to the court case on Monday and after the 3 day hearing, to settle the Lyoness members down.
memberservice.lyoness.com/notification/html_mail.jsp?params=3880532+j.rylah%40trinitytelecom.net.au+0+000l2iq000nxs0000000c6fp03z3omic
how long time does it usaly take for court to come whit there judgment?
any new info on this case?
I’ve been tracking the case all week. They had five hearings in total, with the last one wrapping up today.
The Judge has reserved judgement however, so a decision could be as early as next week. It could also be given in the preceding weeks, it’s up to the Judge at this point.
We might get information from 3rd parties in attendance in the meantime, but I’m going to wait for judgement before publishing anything myself.
I too gave Lyoness $3,000. They won’t give it back.
I am in the U.S. I guess I am going to contact the FTC. Any help, please.
Contact Advofin, they are filing a class-action lawsuit in Europe.
And always contact the authorities in your country (indeed, the FTC, but maybe also the FBI, local AG and BBB).
The correct way is normally to contact local state authorities in your own state.
Here’s North Carolina as an example:
ncdoj.gov/Consumer/2-2-12-File-a-Complaint.aspx
Example from that website:
I would have preferred a solution like that one. Let them enforce the law on behalf of the public.
As I stated earlier the courts ruled ended against the ACCC. The case was dismissed. Lyoness it’s free to join, shop and get cashback. If you feel like starting up a business with Lyoness go ahead it is legal.
Congratz!
@Peter Fuhr
I thought you had disappeared or had been called back for additional “Lyoness communication training”?
Try to limit it to certain countries? And try to limit it to “currently legal”?
Lyoness still has that Consumer Protection case in Austria, where 61 of the clauses in the T&C were deemed illegal, and where the contract as a whole was declared unenforceable in Austria.
So you should probably mention that there’s still some risks involved, e.g. you have individuals being sued in some countries. But other than that … there’s relatively low risk.
Hey Lyoness as slowly evolved. They don’t even talk about the 3k investment anymore.
The entry point is 49.00 one time fee now and for small business they can get involved for 599.00.. all very affordable and very little risk.
I have been retrained and that probably is the worst part about Lyoness the constant change… hopefully for the better!
This is total BS again from you, Peter Fuhr.
Nohing had changed, now you can put money into Lyoness same way it was possible before to progress your personal pyramid matrix.
Before it was “downpayment” to aquire AU’s which needed to be toped up with cash amount big enough to make it all nonsense. To as it Lyoness demanded chains wouchers to be bought the same time additionally.
Now they ask members to pay monthly fee and to declare they are not consumers but enterpreneurs so they allowed to purchase Discount Vourchers which results in Shopping Points one can purchase AU’s for.
The Vouchers can be topped up with the same ridiculus cash amount as the downpayments before.
They were selling AU’s directly saying these money are downpayment for future shopping/vouchers but with no need to top it up.
Now they say they sell discount vouchers nobody needs to top up and get SP AU are made with.
You probably mean “They don’t allow members to openly talk about 3K investments. That part of the program has been moved to Lyconet”.
My comment was about that the statement “it’s legal” didn’t tell the whole truth. It will need to be limited in certain ways.
It’s not risk free for merchants to participate in the program. They will need to do something to reduce the risks, e.g. they should avoid recruiting customers into the investment part of the program, and they should probably avoid recruiting merchants too.
And they should probably avoid investing anything themselves in that part of the program.
What are those fees about?
“$49 entry fee” sounds like the costs of joining Lyconet and get a website or a back office?
“$599 for small businesses” sounds like some additional services or material, e.g. a starter kit for merchants — the tools they need to sign up customers as Lyoness members?
… and then they can be presented for the opportunity where they can earn a percentage of every purchase made by people they sign up as Lyoness members, and every merchant they sign up as Lyoness/Lyconet merchants.
could you provide us with a link of the lyoness compensation plan as it stands today?
if the US compensation plan is different, please provide a link to that too.
They didn’t tell you the most important part — that you would need to find the right audience first and that you carefully should avoid places where people ask difficult questions.
We don’t offer that type of “right audience”. People visit this website because they want to avoid something, not because they are eagerly looking for “affordable opportunities to join”.
It’s not easy to promote something if you have dissatisfied consumers posting in the same thread or on the same website, or other “troublesome factors” that only will reduce motivation to join.
And we can clearly bring in those dissatisfied consumers looking for methods for how to get their money back from Lyoness.
They haven’t removed the investment, they have only made it become less visible. And they have renamed it from “Accounting Program” to “Balance Program”.
I’m not very familiar with the changes they made when Lyconet was introduced, but the investment program seems to be relatively unchanged.
“They don’t even talk about it” is probably true. It only made it more difficult for merchants to promote the cashback solution to consumers and to present themselves as “Lyoness merchants”.
It could easily be interpreted by the consumers as an attempt to recruit them into a recruitment driven opportunity.