What Vemma is up against next Thursday
There’s a lot of talk in the MLM industry now surrounding the FTC’s temporary shutdown of Vemma.
A lot of folks seem to think this was some sort of knee-jerk reaction, the setting of an example if you will, initiated through blind vengeance with a complete lack of evidence.
That couldn’t be further from the truth, and today we take a look at what went down on the 21st of August.
For those unfamiliar with the finer details of the FTC’s illegal pyramid scheme complaint against Vemma, the 21st of August marked the date the regulator was granted an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO).
This TRO put a halt to Vemma’s business activities and placed a Receiver in charge of the company.
Despite what you might have read elsewhere, getting a TRO is no simple task.
To get a TRO against Vemma, the FTC had to demonstrate to the court their “ultimate likelihood of success” in obtaining a preliminary injunction, and that said injunction is “in the public interest”.
This is based on evidence, the same that will be presented to the court next Thursday when the matter of the preliminary injunction comes up.
In the meantime, the court granted the FTC a TRO on the basis
The FTC has shown a likelihood that it will ultimately succeed.
Again, I’ll re-enforce that this was not some willy-nilly decision by the court.
The aim wasn’t to stick it to people earning money in Vemma, trample on entrepreneurial rights, keep you in an invisible cage, attack the MLM industry or any of the other garbage I’ve seen floating around.
In the court’s own words:
Based upon the evidence presented, there is good cause to believe that Defendants have violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by:
a) Operating an illegal pyramid scheme;
b) Falsely representing that members of the Vemma program (“Affiliates”) are likely to earn substantial income;
c) Representing that individuals have earned substantial income from participation in the Vemma program and that consumers who become Vemma Affiliates have the ability to earn substantial income, while failing to disclose, or disclose adequately, that Vemma’s structure ensures that most consumers who become Vemma Affiliates will not earn substantial income; and
d) Providing the means and instrumentalities for the commission of deceptive acts and practices by furnishing Vemma Affiliates with promotional materials to be used in recruiting new participants that contain false and misleading representations.
The decision by the court was based on evidence, and I cannot emphasize that enough.
The FTC has hard evidence against Vemma, which has been presented in court and convinced a Judge that immediately stopping Vemma’s business activities, till next Thursday at least, was in the public’s best interest.
Based upon the evidence presented, there is good cause to believe that:
i) Defendants are violating and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act;
ii) Consumers nationwide have suffered and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to suffer harm including economic injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act; and
iii) Defendants have received and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to receive, ill-gotten gains as a result of their violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act;
b) This Court finds that the public interest is served by:
i) Enjoining deceptive or unfair acts or practices that violate the law;
ii) Maintaining the status quo over assets and business documents relating to Defendants’ alleged law violations until a fair and impartial hearing may be held; and
iii) Preserving the Court’s ability to award full and effective final relief at trial or other disposition of this matter;
c) This Court further finds that, under the facts presented, the private interests of Defendants do not outweigh the public interest in enjoining future law violations, protecting assets or documents, or preserving the Court’s ability to award effective full and final relief.
And for those wondering why all of this was done in secret, without notifying Vemma:
There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable damage to the FTC’s ability to obtain effective final relief on behalf of consumers-including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, refunds of monies paid, and disgorgement of ill-gotten monies-will occur from the sale, transfer, or other disposition or concealment by Defendants of assets and/or business documents or records, if Defendants are provided with advance notice of this Order.
There was sufficient concern that advance notice of this action might impact funds recovered, which in turn would dampen the FTC’s recovery efforts. The court agreed.
In the FTC’s law enforcement experience, defendants who receive notice of the filing of an action by the FTC often attempt to immediately dissipate assets or destroy documents.
The FTC has provided, in its Rule 65(b)(l)(B) declaration, numerous examples of defendants who have or have attempted to interfere with the Court’s ability to award full and effective final relief by dissipating assets or destroying documents.
Such conduct is likely in cases such as this, where defendants have generated hundreds of millions of dollars using business practices permeated by deception.
Additionally, Corporate Defendants have connections to associated companies and bank accounts in foreign jurisdictions, including Kenya, China, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Taiwan, Singapore, and Vietnam.
Corporate Defendants can easily transfer assets to these foreign bank accounts and have done so repeatedly.
Through his control over Corporate Defendants, Defendant Benson K. Boreyko can take advantage of these connections and accounts to dissipate assets.
“Corporate defendants” refer to Vemma, who as per the FTC have multiple offshore bank accounts at their disposal.
Yes, B.K. Boreyko loves double rainbows and is piously religious. He’s also the suspected mastermind of a $200 million dollar plus illegal pyramid scheme, something the MLM industry needs to come to grips with.
We the general public have not yet seen the evidence presented by the FTC, at least not in any great detail. All we’ve seen is the allegations detailed in the FTC’s complaint, which a sizeable sub-section of the MLM industry have taken it upon themselves to mean there is no backing evidence against Vemma.
That evidence exists and will be again presented in court next Thursday.
The FTC has established that it is likely to succeed in proving that Defendants collectively have engaged in a course of conduct to deceive consumers nationwide out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
On point “A”, the illegal pyramid scheme allegation, I’ve yet to see a counter from the Vemma camp.
This is the most serious of the FTC’s allegations against Vemma, and that a concrete defense has not yet materialized is worrying.
Because the FTC is likely to succeed on the merits of its Complaint, the balance of the equities tips in the FTC’s favor considering the public interest, and immediate and irreparable harm, including the dissipation of assets, is likely absent immediate injunctive relief, this Court finds that an ex parte temporary restraining order with an asset freeze and receivership provisions is warranted.
Simply put, no amount of Kevin Thompson affidavits is going to counter the evidence the FTC have prepared against Vemma.
The only card Vemma have left to play is that of the production of retail sales figures, which would challenge the FTC’s assertion that there is no significant retail activity taking place within Vemma.
I suspect next Thursday the exact retail sales revenue figures will be made public in court, and I’d be surprised to see a figure over 10%.
That alone would clearly be enough to obtain a preliminary injunction against Vemma, leaving aside the other three issues outlined in the FTC’s complaint.
That’s where we’re currently at, and the reality is things aren’t looking good for Vemma. And if they truly don’t have significant retail sales, then rightly so.
Time to retire the cult-like “us vs. them” personas and face reality folks.
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the Court’s August 21st Order granting a TRO against Vemma (available in the ASDUpdates files section).
Bit of trivia for you: The Receiver temporarily appointed in the Vemma case, Rob Evans & Associates, is the same Receiver appointed in the FHTM pyramid scheme case.
all we need is isaacs claiming he did all the leg work for this and the circle will be complete.
DSA conclude:
Or in other words, there’s nothing new in the FTC’s complaint on the legal side of things. And if the evidence against Vemma falls foul of that… well, you can put 2 and 2 together.
Troy Dooly responds by throwing the DSA under the bus:
mlmhelpdesk.com/what-does-the-dsa-have-to-say-about-the-ftc-claiming-vemma-is-a-pyramid/
I do agree, but I’ve never pretended being a DSA member meant anything.
why? you hid behind a NDA when caught the second time.
Posted 8 hours ago under Troy Dooly’s Facebook video about the DSA:
It looks like the “us vs. them” mentality is being perpetuated amongst the cult members.
Anyone has a copy of that email the FTC sent out I’d love to read it…
i wonder if the FTC email has anything to do with thompsons request for ‘help’ from the affiliates in the form of affidavits, declaring that they were on vemma autoship because they love the products are were self consuming.
the judge will say – if the products are so great, why do you need autoship? affiliates will buy the anyways!
“I now have 10 (20, 100, 200, 1000) affidavits from Vemma IBOs declaring they were on Vemma autoship because they love the products and were self consuming, which leaves a balance of XXXX IBOs who are on autoship so they can participate in the alleged illegal pyramid scheme”.
I see this as a step in the right direction.
This will scare a lot of “leaders” and they will not use outrageous claims, “lifestyle” marketing and companies will do away with autoships. This will lead to decreased growth and sooner or later when recruitment slows enough these pyramids will collapse.
I always thought the government would shut them down but now I believe vemma being made an example might trigger the industry to collapse on itself.
I mean common let’s stop the great front: there are no real RETAIL customers in mlm.
lets not be over dramatic. the MLM industry will not collapse on itself, there will be a cleansing, but that’s always good.
forced buying of inventory upon joining, and putting [mostly] all affiliates on autoship will have to be rejected.
it will be a return to the ‘amway model’.
Oz or anyone else who knows the answer:
If Vemma is indeed permanently shut down next Thursday, do you believe the Receiver will start the claw back action against their distributors as was the case with Zeek?
You mentioned Rob Evans & Associates is also the Received in the case against FHTM, which is now over 2 years ago. They used a Coded Bonus-type marketing plan that paid Customer Acquisition Bonuses (CAB) to recruiters. Did the Receiver initiate claw back of ill gotten gains against the distributors of FHTM?
@ anjali “lets not be over dramatic. the MLM industry will not collapse on itself, there will be a cleansing, but that’s always good.”
I believe most MLM companies fall short on the Retail Sales requirements.
Didn’t we learn from the Amway ruling back in 1979 about:
10 customer rule
70% sale of inventory
I believe MLM companies like Mary Kay, Tupperware and Avon could probably pass that test but that is based on how they did business 10-15 years ago.
I am not sure but I believe most of the companies that actually put an emphasis manufacture THEIR OWN products. This is important because in some product categories (skin care, weight loss for example) their retail price can be competitive in the marketplace.
But the companies still have to monitor and enforce the Retail Sales rule.
If Vemmas does in fact go down and they initiate claw back action against their distributors, it will be catastrophic for a huge percentage of MLM companies and their distributors IMO.
Most of them will have to immediately change their compensation plans and put more commissions on the retail sales side. In doing so, they will have to take that money from someplace else in the marketing plan – – like overrides. If they are not manufacturing their own products, where will they find the money and still price their products competitive to the point where their distributors can acquire Retail Customers?
Can you say “Catch 22”?
It doesn’t look good anyway you “cut” it.
Clawbacks against net winners are more common in SEC cases (investment schemes, securities).
FTC will typically sue the main organizers only, and the company itself. It may sue top distributors if they have been heavily involved.
BurnLounge:
That makes sense – thanks for clearing that up M Norway.
the koscot test and MLM case law do not lay down any ‘specific’ [outside] retail sales requirement. they only require that commissions be paid on sales of products to ultimate users.
these ultimate users will comprise of both outside retail consumers and internal self consumers. what the ratio between these two sets of ultimate users should be, has not been clarified by a court yet, except that outside retail is considered non negotiable.
this is because lack of outside retail is a symptom that the MLM emphasizes recruitment over product sales, or that the product has no market demand or is not priced competitively.
thus the quantity of retail is not an issue with the court as long as compulsory inventory purchases are offset with retail sales requirements [10 customer rule] and anti inventory protections [70% rule].
the FTC expert stacey bosley who has filed her declaration in the vemma litigation, has pointed out that inspite of all the inventory loading via autoship, vemma did not have any retail rules. and because of the autoship based commissions, there were no real self consumers either.
the amway model seems to be the model which will not fall afoul of the FTC, and MLM companies which wish to continue with autoship based models, should have strictly enforced retail rules.
“The Amway model” isn’t recognzed as a legal standard.
The court accepted it in that case = Amway had an adequate system in place to protect coonsumers against inventory loading etc.
So a court will most likely accept any “adequate system” if a company can prove that it actually works.
Similarly, a court may not accept an “Amway model” if it doesn’t work.
The court didn’t accept other parts of Amway’s model, e.g. the price fixing model
I don’t.
As Kevin Thompson’s search for participant affidavits shows, Vemma intends to argue that the products were used and had value to the consumer.
I don’t think the receiver can disregard that argument.
Zeek had no product, which made quantification of losses and gains relatively straightforward, but throw in a useful product of indeterminate value as Vemma has done and quantification of gains and losses becomes more subjective. Its just an all around messier proposition.
the amway model is a legal standard, but it is not law. it has effective anti pyramiding rules which are used by the courts and the FTC, in the absence of any other rules.
the FTC is using the amway standard in the vemma case too:
apparently vemma has a 70% rule which was based on self verification by distributors, and no sanctions for violations. its merely a paper rule.
vemmas buy back policy does not include high shipping costs, which makes the buyback ineffective due to the weight of the products.
further the 70% rule which does nothing by way of preventing inventory loading, actually is an advantage to the company, because as affiliates have self verified that they have consumed 70% products every month, the buyback becomes restricted to only 30% of the distributors total purchase.
of course. amway is an effective standard, but it’s not written in stone. but as vemma was relying on two amway safeguards, it will have to show how effective and enforced these standards really were.
clawback as norway pointed out in post#13, may be limited to only the topmost handful of distributors.
but there could be restitution for affiliates [from the vemma estate] who file claims for losses to the receiver.
the court can use a system similar to the class action settlement in herbalife, awarding some damages to affiliates for ‘business loss’ depending upon the amount they invested in the products.
the court can also keep some money aside for product buyback.
Sure, I agree but i do not foresee the Vemma Receiver attempting to clawback money from college kids who have been the victims of deceptive trade practices. Have i overstated the case?
It has been accepted by courts because it actually had a function (or it looked like it had a function). But a court won’t accept it if it doesn’t work as intended, e.g. because of differences between business models.
The “Amway model” is primarily used for pseudo-compliance, e.g. people fill out forms with made up customer sales each month to look “compliant” to regulators. So the “Amway model” is part of the problem rather than part of a solution.
In short, it’s the DSA version of compliance. “It looks nice enough on the outside, but it’s pill rotten on the inside”.
Seems DSA is responding by throwing Vemma under the bus while sounding vaguely supportive at the same time.
Basically, what DSA said was “autoship is not illegal (Vemma is doing it wrong, but we didn’t actually say that)”
Doubt they will be clawback except for the net winners, i.e. those that cycled quite a bit.
Being a product based pyramid scheme, that encouraged consumption of the products, Vemma basically was relying on reality inversion, i.e. sell = buy, promote = consume. As product was consumed, there’s unlikely to be refund.
Reciever, IMHO, is just there to prevent any dissipation of assets.
About the clawback discussion …
I found a 20 pages pdf “Ponzi Law” on the internet (I didn’t read it, and I didn’t count the number of pages).
repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=mlr
That author identified clawback to be about bankruptcy law.
A Ponzi scheme is “default bankrupt” right from the start, unable to pay its investors any legitimate profit on their investments. That’s why money can be clawed back from net winner investors (using Fraudulent Transfer laws).
A product based pyramid scheme isn’t about bankruptcy, it’s about “deceptive trade practice”. There’s no “net winners / net losers” there, only participants in an illegal scheme.
* Any payout directly related to the deceptive activity can be fully disgorged, but the process is much more complicated than bankruptcy clawbacks.
* Since most of the participants usually are consumers and have been misled in some ways, the court can offer restitution to victims.
I would hope that any Vemma distributor tempted to send in an affidavit to Kevin Thompson or Vemma’s Arizona lawyers has the presence of mind to seek out their own counsel.
Because if you got called to the stand to testify about your affidavit, you will be on your own. Vemma’s counsel will not represent you, and the FTC’s counsel goes without saying.
My personal, non-legal (even though I’m an ex-lawyer) advice is not to give an affidavit, as tempting as it may be to get the business back up and running.
That’s because the author was specifically discussing bankruptcy…. where some ponzis end up (Telexfree comes to mind.)
However, Bell in Zeek is not relying on the Bankruptcy Code. He does not need to since similar provisions are incorporated into the NC Fraudulent Transfers Act.
It could be, the Vemma Receiver could file for bankruptcy as a way to clawback funds from Vemma net winners ….just like your article says.
Certainly that, but he may be called upon to handle other clean up items as well.
I pointed out the same thing in a different thread, from a different perspective.
I will prefer that Vemma gets a fair trial. So I didn’t try to scare anyone away from doing it. And neither did you.
FTC most likely have a solid case. It’s being reflected from multiple sources, e.g. DSA (post #3).
I simply tried to look at it from the viewpoint of a
defense lawyersales person, an initial look for weaknesses and “What would I have preferred if I had been …?”.Oz (or others), In the complaint that you included above, you listed Item a)Operating an illegal pyramid scheme.
Can you explain, in simple terms, how Vemma violated this provision? What about the Vemma Business Model is “operating an illegal pyramid scheme?
Simple terms = “recruitment driven opportunity / no retail sale to external consumers”.
The only realistic way to make money was to recruit other people, put them on autoship $126 per month (or more), and teach them how to recruit people.
In and endless stream where most people were doomed to fail, but where a few would make a profit.
M Norway – I have noticed a common thread on other forums and message boards where Pro-Vemma posters refer to the BurnLounge case. Here is one such post from Ken Steward, Vemma distributor:
Would you agree with this statement?
Here is what I am trying to determine:
Can an MLM company put an emphasis on recruiting new distributors who purchase the initial package ($199 to $1295) and then sign up for autoship, but have practically NO CUSTOMERS who are not also distributors, and still be in compliance?
Is there a clearly defined definition of what constitutes a Retail Customer?
@MLM
Fixed that for you.
A whole bunch of “yay we can ignore retail!” bullshit was touted after that decision. And now it’s come to bite the MLM industry back in the ass.
Evidently some people are still in denial.
Realistically, So long as the affidavit is truthful there should be nothing to fear from being called as a witness, though of course doing so could lead to a deposition … but again as long as the affiant has told the truth as he understands it there should be nothing to fear.
Thirdly and this is really where economic reality comes in… If the affiant is not local, the party calling for deposition or testimony in a Federal case has to pay for travel costs or forego deposing or calling the affiant as a witness. The affidavit would have to be a real blockbuster to justify that.
Of course…. if the affiant is lying through his teeth then things are different but an honest person should have no reason to fear.
Admittedly, there is more risk in making an affidavit, than not, but then there is more risk in getting out of bed than sleeping in. It depends on what’s important to the person.
If I have something wrong I am sure i will hear about it so give it a go.
Where and what time, will the FTC hearing be held? I presume, open to the public?
Please advise. Thank you.
From the case docket:
Yes, but he’s focusing on a small part / “wrong part”.
Too complicated question, but you’re indicating a pyramid scheme.
VEMMA
A court will need to examine how it operated in reality
* all relevant factors the parties bring in
* all relevant legal arguments
* all relevant evidence
The court can’t simply look at some random factors like retail sale or payment for recruitment and make final decisions based on that.
“All relevant” will be different from case to case. Recruitment and lack of retail sale are usually among the most relevant factors.
“Different answers”
When we act like experts or Ken Stewart does it, then we’re usually looking at our own theories for “how things work” = you will most likely get some relevant info, but not the whole picture. You will most likely get a biased version.
That was “short story made long”. 🙂
Correct.
The rest of your post is largely about the same (I can’t answer “economic reality”).
Kevin Thompson has only asked for affidavits, “something he can use to back up his case”. It’s a pre-trial hearing, so people won’t be called as witnesses to that hearing. So I don’t really see any problem.
you will find the definition of retail in the dictionary:
so, consumers who purchase goods at retail are retail customers.
in MLM, these retail customers are both outside and inside. when they are inside it is called ‘self consumption’.
Uh holdup. In MLM retail is the sale of products to non-affiliates.
Retail can exist without internal consumption. Both can co-exist (assuming a 50% or so even spread) but internal consumption cannot exist alone (product-based pyramid scheme).
Then Babener must have given you a shock. 🙂
How so?
“In reasonable amounts” = equal to or less than retail sales revenue.
Me and Jbabs are on the same page.
agreed.
That’s funny it seemed to me as if you thought submitting an affidavit was like volunteering for castration. Gee Whiz Mr. Bill you mean I might be called to testify and face a cross examination. Whoooo!
So you “don’t really see a problem” with signing an affidavit but there is “the problem with the affidavit strategy.” (which includes signing an affidavit).
Bravo.
not agreed. i dont know where you pulled that equation from.
how much self consumption VS pure retail is accepted by a court, will depend on how the MLM works and sells products in reality.it will be case specific.
Not really. Otherwise give me a legitimate case where 90% internal consumption vs. 10% retail would fly?
There’s a point where a lack of retail sales matters. I go with about 50% give or take as a minimum.
Haven’t seen an MLM opportunity busted for being a pyramid scheme with 50%+ retail sales yet.
i’ve seen herbalife with 70% self consumption, and it wont be busted either.
Uh, we don’t know Herbalife’s retail figures (they claim they have no idea either), so you have no idea what their company-wide self-consumption rate is.
I argue that because Herbalife don’t bother tracking retail sales, internal consumption probably sits at close to 95%-99% (revenue flowing into the company from affiliates versus that of retail customers).
if your argument is true the FTC will get an injunction against herbalife soon [or should have already].
except that, it wont happen, which means your argument is not true.
Right. And the FTC won’t go after Vemma because B.K. Boreyko is a swell guy, Vemma is a member of the DSA, the company has great products and tons of customers etc. etc.
Oh, wait.
correct. you must wait and think.
herbalife has a buyers club model which will lean towards heavy self consumption.
vemma has an autoship based model which Should lean towards heavy pure retail.
Didn’t the FTC slap Amway with a 70% rule back in the late 1970s? Meaning that products bought monthly had to be sold at wholesale or retail during the month.
I seem to remember a 10 customer rule, too. At least 1 in 10 sales had to be retail.
I’m guessing that every case is different because there doesn’t seem to be a hard and fast rule or set guidelines from the FTC.
the FTC did not slap amway with the 70% or 10 retail rule.
amway had these safeguards in place, including buyback, and this saved it from being declared a pyramid scheme.
the FTC holds that the amount of self consumption in an MLM is not a concern, it is about WHO is buying the products and WHY.
Glad to hear. Then you have accepted point #7 without a shock.
I don’t say that he’s 100% correct, but he literally says that it doesn’t really matter whether the ultimate user is a distributor or an external consumer.
The amounts, however, must be “reasonable”.
But he says a lot more, e.g. that the motivation for the purchase must be the correct one.
if there is 100% self consumption, with commissions paid on it, how can an honest motive be proved?
is it logically possible that only affiliates inside the MLM realize the ‘value’ of the product?
besides, buying packages at joining, and autoship are ‘inventory loading’ and whenever there is inventory loading the amway safeguards have to be implemented, for ensuring that the MLM is not a pyramid scheme.
or some other safeguards that babener, thompson etc can think up.
Well if there’s no retail, you can’t possible argue the motivation for purchases across the board is retail orientated.
Vemma’s own marketing material and that of their affiliate’s is damning enough in that regard.
The FTC have thus far submitted a CD or two of evidence, as well as exhibits supporting their complaint as late as last Friday.
It slapped Amway with a price fixing “something”.
The 70% rule was a part of Amway’s defense for “not really harmful, not really a pyramid scheme”. Amway’s own rule, not something from FTC.
I analysed almost the complete Amway case in a Herbalife thread, post #6 – #18.
(Post 7)
behindmlm.com/companies/herbalife/ftc-herbalife-investigation-they-had-it-coming/#comment-225338
if vemma can show healthy retail, they will of course win in court. but that wont happen.
if autoship subscriptions are honestly for self consumption, then babener must explain, how all the affiliates have the SAME self consumption HABITS.
is babbener saying that by some fluke of coincidence every vemma affiliate has a driving urge to consume products worth 150$ per month? and coincidentally this is the exact amount for commissions?
if consumer behavior was so predictable, every company would know its retail sales in advance.
@ M Norway
Thanks!
THE 70 PERCENT RULE – WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT? BY JEFFREY A. BABENER gives a great explanation as well.
mlmlegal.com/seventy.html
I have probably looked at it before. IIRC, it was the reason for why I decided to look closer into the Amway case.
Wrong question. 🙂
He mentioned something about “fact driven”. Points #6, #7 and #8 are about that. I’m only quoting point #6.
He has actually provided a complete “overview” for that particular case, but he hasn’t covered EVERY detail. It’s a “first edition” = “good enough to be published but not the final version”.
I haven’t looked at all the details yet, so you can’t expect detailed answers.
nope.
it will be obvious to even the dimwitted, that any arguments about the ‘motive’ behind affiliate autoships, HAVE to be ‘fact driven’.
vemma cannot stand in court and say: judge, our affiliates LOOOOVE our products. in fact they LOOOOVE them so much that we dont encourage retail, because we want to keep this our little secret.
vemma will have to produce some fact driven arguments about how Most red bull [etc] consumers, buy a predetermined amount of product every month, month after month, for self consumption, and hence vemma affiliates are not displaying abnormal self consumption data.
vemma will have to show some fact driven arguments about how its affiliates of different demographics, and incomes, and family sizes, and metabolisms, ALL order a predetermined amount of product every month, month after month, for self consumption.
of course vemma will have to produce ‘fact driven’ arguments for proving the motive behind its autoship self consumption, and that will be the fun part 🙂
The self-consumption issue can’t be analyzed by its own, but with relevant prior cases, such as the 70% rule all the way back to FTC vs Amway 1979.
When FTC settled with Amway in 1979, Amway agreed to ONLY pay on sales done, not by recruitment, make sure every affiliate retail to 10 different customers every month (10 retail rule) and only allow reorder once 70% of the stock had been sold, to PREVENT inventory loading.
Inventory loading was the abuse of downlines by uplines where upline forces downlines to order far more stuff than can reasonably to sold, just so the upline can qualify for commissions.
Inventory loading is also the reason why FTC very much frowns upon the fast start kits, esp. when the amount was not ‘reasonable’.
The “self-consumption” is used to end-run the 70% rule, by claiming the stock was “sold” (to oneself).
It is interesting to see what a lot of the Vemma distributors are saying on the various MLM message boards about the action taken by the FTC.
The main thing I have learned is that almost NONE of them have even a basic understanding of Pyramid Laws.
They most common post is something like this:
“How can Vemma be a pyramid? They have a “actual product” that I buy every month. This is not like Madoff.”
As OZ and others have pointed out, there is a difference between a “ponzi scheme” and a “product-based pyramid scheme.”
Most of these posters truly believe that 100% internal consumption via an auto-ship program is perfectly legal.
BOTTOM-LINE: It is clear that Vemma, their top distributors and other MLM companies DO NOT have programs in place to train/teach their organizations about the requirement of Retail Sales to people who are not part of the scheme.
Instead, they focus on the RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT and SELL THE OPPORTUNITY mentality.
In fact, this is what is being taught by most of the so-called MLM Experts.
They teach power phrases like:
* We are Dream Merchants.
* We don’t sell products (juice, drinks, cosmetics, insurance etc). Most people do not see themselves as sales-types anyway. Instead, we sell Hope and Opportunity!
* Sell the Lifestyle
* Don’t worry about the price of the product because if you recruit 3 people who sign up on auto ship, YOUR products are FREE (sound familiar?)
* How many people woke up today worrying about the energy drink they were buying (Top Five: Red Bull, Monster, Rockstar, MOS, AMP)
Now, how many people woke up today worrying about making their mortgage payment, their kids college tuition, taking a vacation, buying a new car, retirement, hate their job etc?
That is called their WHY.
* Find out your prospect’s WHY and then sell the solution. The solution is emotionally based. For only $500 – $999 you can REINVENT YOUR LIFE, MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE IN YOUR LIFE AND MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE. (part in CAPS is taken from a Vemma training video by their top earner)
BurnLounge, FHTM and now Vemma each received a similar complaint from the FTC.
Question for the board:
What was it about the companies listed above that caused the FTC to take action on them? And maybe an even more important question, we know there are other MLM companies that use the exact same Model. Why haven’t they received a similar complaint from the FTC?
Here is my take:
The FTC doesn’t have the resources to go after ALL of the lawbreakers in the USA. So, they focus those resourses on the companies where they have received the most complaints from consumers (voters).
Anyone else care to comment?
College kids are smart, but they are naive, which makes them vulnerable.
They are also likely to have parents that are interested in their welfare…. so when Johnny comes home for Easter Break all excited about how much money he can make selling Vemma full time, and how he has decided to drop out of school the parents get the picture real fast, and before you know it the FTC is hearing how kids at State College are being targeted by pyramid predators.
If Vemma was in fact targeting college kids, its no wonder it has been singled out from the usual suspects.
He’s dead right about that.
Unfortunately he’s wrong about Madoff Investments being a “pyramid” scheme, it was a “ponzi” scheme.
In fact, he was initially charged on 11 counts, none of which were “running a ponzi” or “running a pyramid”
Count 1, Securities Fraud, Count 2, Investment Adviser Fraud, Count 3, Mail Fraud, Count 4, Wire Fraud, Count 5, International Money Laundering to Promote Specified Unlawful Activity Count 6, International Money Laundering to Promote Specified Unlawful Activity, Count 7, Money Laundering, Count 8, False Statements, Count 9, Perjury, Count 10, False Filing With the SEC, Count 11, Theft From an Employee Benefit Plan
FHTM sold memberships with monthly fees, with commissions paid on these fees. the third party products had very small retail margins and affiliates earned money primarily from membership fees of recruited affiliates.
the products were merely incidental to the scheme.
burnlounge sold joining packages bundled with recruitment in its mogul program, with commissions paid on these packages. the court found that these commissions were primarily recruitment commissions, even though self consumption could partly explain the motive for these purchases.
the products were merely incidental to the scheme.
in vemma products are bundled with recruitment in the form of joining packages and monthly autoship requirements, with commissions paid on these purchases.
the court will study whether the commissions paid on the joining package and the autoships, were primarily for recruitment or self consumption or retail sales.
in light of the burnlounge appeal order, the court will most likely find that the reason for vemma purchases were primarily tied to recruitment and not self consumption.
it may find that the products are merely incidental to the scheme.
uh, ponzi schemes are security frauds.
But why did the FTC single-out Vemma at this point and not the many other MLM whose model is basically a carbon-copy? Why Vemma? Why now?
Uh, the charge was: Count 1, Securities Fraud
No editorializing by me.
He was NOT charged with “running a ponzi” thus heading off the argument used by fraudsters and Anjalitrolls about what constitutes a “ponzi” or a “pure ponzi” / pyramid scheme etc
Was he charged with securities fraud ???
Yes he was
Are there other forms of “non ponzi” securities fraud ???
Yes there are
Did the charge say “Count 1, securities fraud, but not xxxx or yyyy or zzzz type securities fraud ??
No it didn’t
@MLM Broken Model
truthinadvertising.org/takedown-feds-move-against-vemma
What better way to send a signal to the MLM and direct selling industries that the glory days are over / the pendulum has swung too far / you’ve taken too many liberties / behave yourself or else, without having to spend millions on long, drawn out legal battle/s.
If the FTC case is upheld, it WILL change the MLM / direct selling industries forever
IOW, mission accomplished for what is, after all, a regulatory agency, not simply a punitive body.
from the SEC complaint against madoff:
i repeat, ponzi schemes are securities frauds. when you run ponzi schemes, you are charged with securities fraud.
if you still have a bellyache, take it to the SEC. this topic has been discussed, and to the best of my understanding, resolved in an earlier discussion on a zeek or herbalife thread. go find it. we shall not rinse and repeat.
Ponzi schemes are securities frauds.
Are all securities frauds Ponzi schemes…?
I think that’s the point being missed here.
littleroundman – That explains the “what” the FTC hopes to gain by taking action against Vemma.
It does not explain why they decided to go after Vemma instead of the other MLM companies with similar recruit-driven models.
I suggested it might be the number of complaints filed against Vemma.
ponzi schemes are securities frauds BUT the Converse is not true ie ALL securities frauds are not ponzi’s.
according to wiki:
madoff was charged with: count 1 – securities fraud = ponzi scheme.
It doesn’t really matter, does it ??
The MLM / direct selling industry is seen by many to be out of control, so SOMEBODY was bound to be pinged.
How many reasons can YOU come up with as to why Vemma is that “somebody” ??
IMHO, Vemma had the most complaints, most public exposure (other than Amway), having been covered by CNBC, Al Jazeera, etc. and was sanctioned in Italy (and paid a fine), not to mention campus newspapers where the heavy-handed recruitment tactics were thoroughly documented.
It can be argued that college kids may be a “vulnerable population” much like seniors and needed to be protected from predatory scams.
There’s a Chinese idiom: kill a chicken to warn the monkey. Vemma happens to be the chicken, and it surely deserve the sledgehammer.
In the Madoff case securities fraud = false pretence.
“Other specialized crimes that are similar to false pretenses are mail, wire and bank fraud as well as securities fraud”.
In the Madoff case securities fraud = false pretenses.
“Other specialized crimes that are similar to false pretenses are mail, wire and bank fraud as well as securities fraud”.
littleroundman – I get your point but it matters for this reason. Was the FTC action against Vemma a one-and-done with no intent to follow through with charges against other companies.
Or, was this just the first of many actions they plan on taking against companies that use the recruit-driven model of MLM.
That is the question.
It will be interesting to see how those companies react if the FTC puts Vemma out of business on Sept. 3rd. And, will this change the way top MLM Distributors do business?
One thing is certain. These Recruit-driven MLM companies will have a difficult time shifting from a Opportunity First approach to one that puts the emphasis on Retail Sales.
The MLM Mode is basically Broken.
K Chang – I agree with you. It was massive complaints and media coverage that caused the FTC to take action.
Are there other MLM companies with a similar situation at this time?
Anyone care to speculate about which MLM companies are worried the most about the Vemma case (other than Vemma of course)?
ANY that specifically target the young and/or the poor.
ANY that specifically target the young and/or the poor.
That’s because there is no such charge as ‘running a ponzi.” It does not exist in law. Thus the person is charged with securities fraud and other related activities, which together comprise a scheme known colloquially as a ponzi.
FHTM, BurnLounge and now Vemma. Did all of these MLM companies “target the young and/or the poor”?
There was a Top Distributor who left Organo Gold and joined Jeunesse earlier this year.
In their online opportunity meetings, webinars and marketing videos, they push the $1200 product package as the best way to start. Why? One reason is because you start off at a higher rank. Vemma had a similar option.
Based on reading posts from this board and others on the subject, I thought it was illegal to SELL RANK.
I haven’t read anything about this in the complaint or in the article by Jeff Babener.
When is the FTC going to start enforcing these laws by proactively policing the industry and without waiting to be motivated by complaints from young/poor people?
DSA Hints At Its Intentions of Publicizing Code of Ethics Violations:
directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/responsible_self_regulation#.VeTDxOZtciV
Meanwhile over in Jeunesse, a DSA member, it’s an all out ethics violations free-for-all…
i have a feeling that the DSA is going to flex some muscle and throw a couple of companies out from the association.
jenuesse may be an easy choice to make a public example of.
Our own esteemed Mr. Ryan has made a few more documents available. Docket # 30-1 is closer to raw data that an organized exhibit but given where it comes from it’s well worth some examination.
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YXNkdXBkYXRlcy5jb218ZmlsZXMtd2Vic2l0ZXxneDoxY2M1NzdkYjI3Y2JkMTBm
Cheers, I was just about to go through the same information.
The supplemental evidence filed by the FTC last Friday pertains to Vemma cooking their disclosure books.
Specifically the calculated exclusion of affiliates by way of recruitment quotas, to make the 2013 onwards disclosure statements look better than they are.
Vemma sought to define affiliates who had not recruited an affiliate as retail customers, despite affiliate agreements being signed and these affiliates having access to the Vemma income opportunity.
This has landed them in hot water.
I know Empower Network pull the same shenanigans with their disclosure statement, and I’m sure others do too.
In related news, Vemma are being represented by Brian Ronald Booker of Quarles & Brady LLP:
BK Boreyko is being represented by Lindsi Michelle Weber of Gallagher & Kennedy:
affiliates can be customers, i see no problem with that.
the question before the court will be, that if these customers joined up as affiliates, merely to enjoy the discount, then how many bought the joining pack and how many were on autoship. customers should not have inventory requirements.
the FTC is going to show that most vemma affiliates were on autoship, so whether vemma calls its recruiting reps ‘affiliates’ and its non recruiting reps ‘customers’, doesn’t help their argument at all.
Not retail customers.
of course not.
in the context of vemma, they are going to build their argument around self consumption, they wont argue retail, because they ain’t got any.
Best of luck ignoring a large chunk of the FTC’s complaint then…
kevins thompsons video about the vemma case didnt mention anything about retail, he talked more about the ‘value’ of the vemma product. see?
Is court still happening on 9/3/15 or was a delay granted?
According to BK Boreyko’s latest Facebook post, he will be in an all day hearing on 9/15/15.
@M Norway
Thank you!
I usually get the Business For Home email updates; but, I missed this one.
Vemma’s Reciever has filed his first interim report with the court for the period Aug 24 to Sept 4th.
The complaints made to the FTC center around failure to refund credit card purchases as promised, and not surprisingly bullying, shaming of peers, harrassment on social media, de-friending on Facebook and outlandish representations of income potential.
There were of course students who wanted to drop out of school to pursue Vemma full time and correspondingly parents that were royally pissed that their kids were being deceived.
There is a LOT of information in the Report… all of it very damaging to Vemma.
The Receiver concludes, after interviewing management and the CFO that there is no way to run the business profitably OR legally.
Boreyko collected nearly $15,000,000, a handful of seed money investors less, and a few affiliates over $100,000 per year. Almost a quarter million kids lost money, could not get refunds and/or earned a pittance even if when they dedicated themselves to the effort.
Source?
Doc #50-1 Vemma case, but not yet uploaded to the ASDupdates.com files website.
Oz should have it. I have no way to post it online.
It was worse. There’s this Vemma leader telling kids to get payday loans, at APR of over 200%, to get into Vemma, because they can easily make it back in a month or two. I happened to have a copy of that Facebook post.
NOLINK://amlmskeptic.blogspot.com/2013/10/evil-mlm-get-payday-loan-to-join-mlm-wtf.html
If it’s very damaging to Vemma, then it will be damaging to others too, e.g. to DSA.
I had a quick look at DSA’s functions in 2013 or 2014. It doesn’t really have any system in place to enforce its own Code of Ethics — a system that works.
Indecent.
And of course Boreyko et al will claim they had no knowledge of this and in no way condone it.
I suspect that most, if not all, current product based MLMs have a pyramid scheme component to them as, if nothing else, this will improve product sales and the bottom line for guys like Boreyko.
And this being the case, no interest in monitoring affiliate behaviour or phony “sales tool” scams … in fact the company may profit from these as well.
I highly doubt most of these MLMs have much legitimate, i.e. non-affiliate customer actually interested in product, retail volume at all.
Just a bunch of folks scammed into buying solely to qualify for the “opportunity”, with few seeing any return at all.
I’m on it. Had a sleep-in.