Toni Vanschoyck claims she’s a founding Monat distributor who owns “founder shares”.

Having been with Monat for “more than a decade”, Vanschoyck also claims she’s worked directly with founders Rayner and Luis Urdaneta, and sits atop a “large and robust” downline.

After watching her commissions drop 75% over two years, Vanschoyck claims she was terminated in May 2024 for asking questions.

Vanschoyck (right) originally filed a Complaint on June 6th in Florida. An amended Complaint, which this article is based on, was filed on June 12th.

Named defendants in Vanschoyck’s Amended Complaint are Monat Global Corp and founders Rayner and Luis Urdaneta.

Speaking further to her role within Monat, Vanschoyck’s attorney describes her as

a mentor and sounding board for an extremely large team of members which has provided significant income to both her downline partner members as well as Monat as a corporation and to Monat’s founders, the Urdanetas.

On the earnings side of things, Vanschoyck claims to have earned over $100,000 a month between 2015 and 2022.

As of 2024 however, Vanschoyck claims her Monat commissions have dropped to “less than a quarter of that sum”.

Vanschoyck doesn’t provide a dollar amount but does state, since 2022, that her annual commission rate is “less than what she used to earn in two months”.

Vanschoyck claims that Monat and the Urdanetas have failed to provide her with a “reasonable explanation”.

[Vanschoyck] avers that the Urdanetas, alongside other Monat corporate employees, have not been forthcoming about the continually changing commission structures for payouts from Monat as a global corporation and that the company as a whole has allowed its product to become substandard.

[Vanschoyck] has been previously included in telephone meetings and face to face meetings where she has raised her concerns directly to the Urdanetas and has not received truthful answers to the commission underpayment and corporate governance questions raised.

[Vanschoyck] has been told by Monat’s corporate compliance team, and the Urdanetas specifically, that her questions regarding payments and commissions would be answered and resolved but to date no resolution has been reached.

In her addition to her own commissions drying up, Vanschoyck claims her downline’s commissions are also “being reduced without explanation”.

[Vanschoyck] has been barred from events and team phone calls which causes her team to seek answers from her about her commitment to the company and their future ability to earn income.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has been caused to answer innumerable questions by members of her downline group regarding the health of the company as well as questions about why commissions were not being appropriately paid.

Attempts to get answer purportedly resulted in Vanschoyck being subject to “repeated verbal and written warnings of disassociation”.

[Vanschoyck] has been excluded from Founder’s regular calls with leadership.

She has been denied a transfer of her business between she and her husband, which she would ordinarily be granted without reservation.

She has been warned by Monat agents that any testimony she gives in any concurrent or future legal matters would directly impact her business with Monat.

She has been told that her continued ability to work with Monat depends on her willingness to “get in line”.

One reason Vanschoyck attributes to her decimated income is downline attrition.

Defendants have, once [Vanschoyck] began posing questions to Monat and the Urdanetas about commission compensation, endeavored to cast [Vanschoyck] in a negative light through email and disparaging communications with other team members and the public at large.

[Vanschoyck] has lost many downline team members as a result of the false and defamatory statements made by company representatives as well as the Urdanetas.

When [Vanschoyck] loses a downline team member, the loss of revenue cuts into [Vanschoyck’s] commissions and causes her to suffer a loss.

The false and defamatory communications from the Company and the Urdanetas have also caused [Vanschoyck] to lose out on being able to add additional team members which causes Plaintiff to suffer an additional loss of monetary compensation.

Vanshocyk further alleges Monat’s current Commission Agreement bears “no reasonable resemblance” to the published Commission Agreement she signed.

As previously stated, Vanshocyck’s alleged attempts to get to the bottom of her and her downline’s slashed commissions resulted in her termination.

Defendants have engaged in the business of smearing [Vanschoyck’s] hard-earned reputation because Defendants feared that [Vanschoyck] was close to uncovering and revealing that Defendants were not paying appropriate compensation and that [Vanschoyck] was powerful enough and has a strong enough voice to bring the Company’s downline team members to question the continued viability of the continued business.

The Defendants feared this more than anything and engaged in a scheme to discredit [Vanschoyck] in such a way that she would be forced to leave the business in shame so that the Defendants could continue to operate unlawfully.

As a result of her termination, [Vanschoyck] has had her access to her commissions revoked and her downline team has been absorbed by the Defendant Monat which has unjustly enriched the Defendant at the expense of [Vanschoyck].

Vanshoyck places Monat’s problems squarely at the feet of the Urdanetas.

[Vanschoyck] avers that Monat’s corporate governance has been compromised by the actions of the Urdanetas to a point where the Urdanetas are no longer fit to serve in any corporate capacity for Monat.

As a result of the Urdanetas’ corporate governance, Vanschoyck further claims she’s

been made aware of additional conversations … which indicates Monat is no longer a viable company with truthful accounting and record keeping practices.

Causes of action raised against Monat and the Urdanetas include:

  1. breach of contract (Monat Global);
  2. specific performance (Monat Global);
  3. breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing (Monat Global); and
  4. defamation (Monat Global and the Urdanetas)

Vanschoyck is claiming damages on the defamation count and loss of revenue and income totalling $1.5 million (split $750,000 across both claims).

Since her Monat termination Vanschoyck has gone on to sign up with Amare Global, an MLM company built around the made-up field of “mentabiotics”.

Vanschoyck’s lawsuit is the second recent legal action against Monat and the Urdanetas.

Back in April former President Stuart MacMillan claimed the Urdanetas ran Monat as a “mafia family & unprincipled syndicate”.

MacMillan (right with the Urdanetas), alleges Monat “suffered significant losses” from 2022.

MacMillan alleges this in turn resulted in the Urdanetas

increasing revenues at any expense, including cutting commissions to Monat’s independent contractor market partners and delaying payments to suppliers.

In a filed countersuit, the Urdanetas accused MacMillan of “gross mismanagement”.

I’ve added Vanschoyck’s Monat lawsuit to BehindMLM’s calendar. Stay tuned for updates as we continue to track the case.

 

Update 4th November 2024 – As per an October 29th scheduling order, a trial has been set for November 3rd, 2025.

The scheduling order has also referred the case to mediation, with a May 19th, 2025 deadline.