By Jeffrey A. Babener

© 2019

(First Published in World of Direct Selling)

History is Written by the Victor

Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack, a crack in everything 

That’s how the light gets in

Anthem, Leonard Cohen

Quiet Uncertainty

It was like the calm of quiet uncertainty before the storm. In May, 2019, 26 year old leading direct selling company, AdvoCare, announced that it would exit MLM in favor of a one level direct sales model. It indicated that it was doing so, and “had no choice,” after confidential talks with the FTC. That was it. No other explanation. And the industry asked: What is this all about? It may be true, as T.S. Elliot said, “the world will end in a whimper, not a bang.” For a detailed article on the May withdrawal and ramifications, see AdvoCare Abandons MLM: Uncertainty Returns to Direct Selling. (World of Direct Selling).

A Jarring Dissonance

The FTC Speaks

And then, in October 2019, a cacophony, as the other shoe dropped. The FTC announced a stipulated judgment in which AdvoCare was proclaimed online and in newspapers across the country as a pernicious pyramid scheme that had swindled hundreds of thousands.

The settlement came with a $150m fine, life time MLM bans for AdvoCare’s CEO and top distributors, and the FTC spiked the ball in the end zone, noting at its press conference,

“It is significant that we have a large and well known multilevel marketing company that is admitting that it operated as a pyramid… “

Sending an underlined message across the bow of the direct selling industry, the FTC online blog labeled the case as “the landmark settlement.”

Buyer’s Remorse

“Foul!,” called AdvoCare in an immediate responsive press release:

“The FTC incorrectly stated in a press conference that AdvoCare had admitted to operating as a pyramid. This is categorically false. AdvoCare forcefully rebutted this charge in its discussions with the FTC. To this day, AdvoCare denies it operated as a pyramid.”

Actually, AdvoCare was technically right… no such admission had been given (although it had stipulated to the veracity of the factual allegations in the Complaint), prompting the Director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection to later apologize at the Washington, D.C. DSA Legal and Regulatory Conference.

A pyrrhic victory for AdvoCare, whose marketing program and opportunity for thousands of distributors was totally gutted. “Elvis had left the building.”

FTC has Non-Legal Leverage. What Now?

This was the third major DSA member company hit by the FTC in less than 5 years. And the FTC accomplished its goals, without litigation, but rather the sheer leverage it had over the companies and individuals based on their unique factual situation. For Vemma, an asset freeze. For Herbalife, the overriding need to address its position as a publicly traded company. For AdvoCare, industry speculation about the unstated jeopardy of owners and board members, as well as existential threat to the business. For better or worse, the FTC accomplished its objectives in all three cases without taking the matter to formal adjudication. Therefore, the new quasi legal standards were set by FTC leverage, without firing a litigation shot, rather than by actual case law. Case law did not change.

Serious? To paraphrase a general counsel of one of the industry’s largest MLM companies:

“Our first priority is not to prepare for a FTC confrontation, but rather to use our best efforts to stay off their radar in the first place.”

More to come? Could well be. The industry was left with a choice. It could wring its hands or treat this as a teachable moment for its future. As they say, a new reality, and “it is what it is.”

(From the industry’s perspective, were the penalties draconian? Absolutely. Might it have been more appropriate to adopt a remedial solution rather than ban the entire MLM model? Absolutely. But that is another issue for another day.)

The initial instinct of the industry was to recoil from a near death blow to a 26 year old industry leader and longtime DSA member, complaining of a new era of FTC bullying.  But, as the facts unraveled, some real concerns arise as “the crack in the bell lets the light in.” Maybe, it was not about bullying after all. The industry needs to pay serious attention and self- reflection about guidance it provides to its own companies.

Fact Checking the FTC and AdvoCare

What were the facts in issue from the standpoint of the FTC and AdvoCare? Well, as far as AdvoCare, we will never know. The company capitulated, without even filing one defensive document. And so, all we really can discern is what the FTC alleged. And from a legal standpoint, their version “stands” because, notwithstanding a preamble that states that AdvoCare neither admits nor denies any of the allegations in the Complaint, the stipulated order for permanent injunction and monetary judgment, recites:

VI.(D) The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true, without further proof, in any subsequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Commission against Settling Defendants….”

And so, we won’t really hear AdvoCare’s explanation. All we have is the uncontested FTC Complaint allegations. And history suggests that this “neither admit nor deny” stipulated order will morph into a “de facto” FTC guidance in the future.

The big picture said the FTC is that the facts support that AdvoCare crossed the line from operating a legitimate MLM program to a program that was instead an illegal pyramid scheme.

For the uncertainty created by no clear adjudication of such important issues, the industry owes “no thanks” to AdvoCare for its decision to merely “roll over,” despite contending after the settlement order that it had forcefully rebutted the pyramid charge in pre-settlement discussions with the FTC. Unfortunately, the “game over buzzer” had already sounded.

History Repeats Itself: Omnitrition Déjà Vu…

Other than ramped up aggressive enforcement and penalties (life time MLM bans for the CEO and lead distributors and forcing AdvoCare to abandon the MLM model), those looking for new insight in the AdvoCare prosecution, will not find it.

This was the opinion of the FTC and its Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Andrew Smith, and a historical legal perspective would come to the same conclusion.

The AdvoCare prosecution can be summed up in a few words:

1. Inventory Loading. In other words, “pay to play,” “buy in to active qualification for “active” rank commissions and rank advancement commissions; purchasing far more product than realistically needed for either personal use or to meet resale demand to customers, focusing on recruiting business builders who buy inventory and encourage others to do the same.
2. Exaggerated Earnings Claims. It is eerie, but this is a “history repeats itself” moment. In 1996, in Webster v. Omnitrition, (79 F.3d 776) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, held Omnitrition to be a pyramid scheme based on the company recruitment of business builders qualified with  inventory loading, who in turn, did the same. Omnitrition was co-founded by Charlie Ragus. In 1993, Ragus founded AdvoCare. It is a sad irony that 26 years later, the Ragus founded AdvoCare MLM program would be shuttered by similar inventory loading accusations as in Omnitrition.

The Omnitrition Court held that the well venerated Amway safeguards meant nothing if not enforced and if, in the presence of inventory loading.

The promise of lucrative rewards for recruiting others tends to induce participants to focus on the recruitment side of the business at the expense of their retail marketing efforts, making it unlikely that meaningful opportunities for retail sales will occur. Koscot, 86 F.T.C. at 1181. The danger of such “recruitment focus” is present in Omnitrition’s program. For example, Webster testified that Omnitrition encouraged him to “get to supervisor as quick as [he] could.” Ligon states:

[T]he product sales are driven by enrolling people. In other words, the people buy exorbitant amounts of products that normally would not be sold in an average market by virtue of the fact that they enroll, get caught up in the process, in the enthusiasm, the words of people like Charlie Ragus, president, by buying exorbitant amounts of products, giving products away and get[ting] involved in their proven plan of success, their marketing plan. It has nothing to do with the normal supply and demand in this world. It has to do with getting people enrolled, enrolling people, getting them on the bandwagon and getting them to sell product…

FN3…First, Omnitrition produced evidence of enforcement only for its ten customer rule. Even assuming that Omnitrition’s enforcement measures are effective, it is not clear that these measures serve to tie the amount of “Royalty Overrides” to retail sales. The overrides are paid based on purchases by supervisors. In order to be a supervisor, one must purchase several thousand dollars’ worth of product each month. That some amount of product was sold by each supervisor to only ten consumers each month does not insure that overrides are being paid as a result of actual retail sales.

Fast Forward 23 years and it all sounds the same. Said the FTC in its Press Release and Blog about AdvoCare:

Press Release:

AdvoCare operated an illegal pyramid scheme that pushed distributors to focus on recruiting new distributors rather than retail sales to customers. The compensation structure also incentivized distributors to purchase large quantities of AdvoCare products to participate in the business and to recruit a downline of other participants with the same incentives. The clear directive of this structure was, as one AdvoCare distributor explained during the company’s Success School training, to “recruit business builders who recruit business builders who recruit business builders…”

The FTC alleged that under the AdvoCare compensation plan, participants were charged $59 to become a distributor, making them eligible to receive discounts on products, and to sell products to the public. To earn all possible forms of compensation, however, participants had to become “advisors,” which typically required them to spend between $1,200 and $2,400 purchasing AdvoCare products and accumulate thousands of dollars of product purchase volume each year, according to the complaint. The FTC alleged that the income of AdvoCare advisors was based on their success at recruiting, with the highest rewards going to those who recruited the most advisors and generated the most purchase volume from their downline.

To recruit people, the FTC alleged, AdvoCare and the other defendants told distributors to make exaggerated claims about how much money average people could make—as much as hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year. The FTC alleged that distributors were told to create emotional narratives in which they struggled financially before they joined AdvoCare, but obtained financial success through AdvoCare. Distributors were also allegedly told to instill fears in potential recruits that they would suffer from regrets later if they declined to invest in AdvoCare.

The FTC alleged that the defendants told consumers that they could realize large incomes by promoting AdvoCare and that their earning capacity was limited only by their effort. For example, AdvoCare promoter Diane McDaniel told consumers that “the sky is the limit. I’m the variable. I get to decide what I truly want according to the effort I put forth” and that “there is incredible profit that can be made through infinity.”

In reality, the FTC alleged, AdvoCare did not offer consumers a viable path to financial freedom. In 2016, 72.3 percent of distributors did not earn any compensation from AdvoCare; another 18 percent earned between one cent and $250; and another 6 percent earned between $250 and $1,000. The annual earnings distribution was nearly identical for 2012 through 2015.

FTC Blog:

…people paid AdvoCare thousands of dollars to become “distributors,” buy inventory, and become eligible for cash bonuses and other rewards. But, the FTC says, AdvoCare rewarded distributors not for selling product but for recruiting other distributors to spend large sums of money pursuing the business opportunity. That push to recruit is a classic sign of a pyramid scheme.

On the earnings front, the FTC also alleged that AdvoCare earnings disclosures played fast and loose with earnings averages by extrapolating data of one month’s earnings into an annual earnings average, when in fact, the month chosen might not be a recurring event.

Legal observers are perplexed how it could happen after Omnitrition litigation that the same “front loading” fact pattern might occur again in a related successor company. Probably, the answer is that, unless one is extremely careful, these things just “creep up on you.

Unfortunately, the cultural problem was not new and was a bit of a “tiger by the tail.” The focus on recruiting and duplicating “front loading” business builders was suggested by a legal expert, who was also a former insider knowledgeable observer, to predate the FTC Order by more than a dozen years:

AdvoCare leaders encouraged new distributors to “buy their Advisor order” ($2,000) so they could begin earning commissions sooner. This was ingrained in the distributor culture… there were efforts made to discourage this and ensure that products purchased through “advisor orders” were sold to retail customers. …AdvoCare was a victim of its own success and it was unable to reign in leaders… Existing problems only become magnified when you go through a period of hyper-growth similar to what AdvoCare experienced.

Based on the “uncontested” alleged facts set forth by the FTC, serious pyramiding issues are raised. And that is all we have. Without a vigorous defense by AdvoCare, or, in fact, any defense at all, and based on the FTC Settlement Order providing that “facts alleged will be deemed to be true,” it is far more than a challenge for industry supporters to come to the support of AdvoCare in this dispute. This is a true loss for the direct selling industry. The silence of AdvoCare left the industry in an awkward uninformed position with no arrows in its quiver, akin to a performer on stage pleading, “throw me a bone, I’m dying up here.”

State of the Law

The FTC and the direct selling Industry are totally in sync on one point:

Nothing about the FTC/AdvoCare settlement changes the existing legal standards for pyramid vs. legitimate direct selling. Those case law standards weave their way in FTC cases from the Koscot case through Amway through Burnlounge:

Koscot: Multilevel commissions must be based on sales to ultimate users.

Amway: Multilevel companies must adopt procedures that encourage retail selling.

Omnitrition (9^th Circuit Class Action): In the presence of front-loading and lack of enforcement of the Amway standards, companies can expect pyramid challenges.

Burnlounge: The primary incentive to distributor purchases or payments should be a genuine need, whether for resale or personal use, as opposed to qualification in the compensation plan. Are distributor payments and commissions driven by recruitment and qualification in the plan, on the one hand, or sales to ultimate users?

Andrew Smith, FTC Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, was in total agreement, in his presentation to the October, 2019 Washington D.C. DSA Legal and Regulatory Conference.

In a well-received presentation, and to the surprise of many attendees, he emphasized multiple times that the FTC is supportive of the MLM model. He went out of his way to express his opinion that, in some ways, MLM is a superior business model because:

1. It provides flexibility and opportunity to individuals to earn extra income.
2. It provides a warm and attentive experience, and qualify products, to retail consumers.

He stated that the FTC welcomes compliant MLM companies. And his standards were not measurably different than existing case law.

The FTC seems to have retreated from its all-out assault on recognition of personal use, as argued and rejected by the BurnLounge court. Its attention is now turned to the basic question of whether a MLM program is placing its focus on sales to ultimate users, which includes personal use purchases in reasonable amounts and wholesale purchases for resale, in amounts reasonably calculated to fulfill retail consumer demand and for which the company can track the flow of product to ultimate users such that compensation reasonable relates to sales to ultimate users.

Overall, Director Smith’s description of the state of the law seemed consistent with case law. He suggested this analysis:

1. Does the scheme emphasize recruiting over sales to consumers? Are compensation results driven by recruiting others? Are distributors focused on recruitment and duplication rewards arising from recruiting other distributors to “buy?” Does that plan have a qualifier relating to recruitment?
2. Does the program have incentives to buy goods that are not based on satisfying a distributor’s own personal needs or reasonable inventory to supply retail customers? A telltale pattern would be monthly purchases just enough to meet compensation qualification activity requirements. Another would be front-loading which Director Smith indicated as an attribute of pyramid schemes. His observation of AdvoCare was that distributors were encouraged to buy and did buy for more than they reasonably needed or could use.

He stated that the FTC key questions are:

1. How do distributors really make money in the plan?
2. Does the company have incentives that promote recruiting and purchasing over sales?
3. Is the company gathering data to track product sales to end consumers?

Director Smith stressed:

1. At the FTC, we want you to be successful as a MLM.
2. However, we also want you to be in compliance as an MLM.
3. Effectively, he said, “we are not looking for a fight, and we want you to stay off our radar,” and he implored companies to examine and reexamine their programs to remove any practices that would put a company on the FTC radar.
4. He stated the FTC position, which no one in the industry disputes, is that a pyramid headhunting inventory loading recruitment scheme is unsustainable as a business model.

Unless completely cynical, given the tenor of his presentation, it seems fair to take Director Smith at his word. Refreshing! The industry can live with this going forward.

Guidance for Radar Avoidance in a Post AdvoCare World

Every breath you take

Every move you make…

I’ll be watching you

Every Breath You Take, Sting, The Police

If you are looking for life in a post FTC vs. AdvoCare/Herbalife/Vemma world, here are some common sense guidelines to create the strongest defense to your MLM program and for promoting anti-pyramid practices aimed at staying off the FTC radar:

1. Overriding Goal…The Big Picture.

The compliant MLM “acid test” will be a mandate and demonstration of significant sales to non-participant retail customers.

Bottom line analysis by FTC and state AGs:

A product or service with real retail customers and a good ratio of retail customers to distributors to demonstrate that people buy the product because they want it, and not just to qualify in the marketing plan.

Upline commissions must derive from sale of product to ultimate end users.

With a high retail customer to distributor ratio, experience suggests that most other legal issues (assuming no outrageous earnings or product claims) tend to recede into the background.

2. Track. Track…Flow of Product to and Use by the Ultimate User.

After Vemma, Herbalife and AdvoCare, few priorities are as important as tracking and verifying the flow of product to and use by the ultimate user, whether it be a nonparticipant retail customer or distributor for personal/family use. The short answer: Track the flow and use of product to both nonparticipant retail customers and distributor personal/family use. In fact every company and the DSA should launch a joint initiative with leading direct selling software companies to develop software which accurately tracks the flow of product such that a company can demonstrate that distributor purchases are, in fact, in reasonable amounts for distributor personal use and reasonable inventory quantities for resale, calculated to meet the ordering needs of retail customers. And software should track that every product sold is used by the ultimate user, whether for personal use by distributors or use by non-participant retail customers.

3. Promote Non-participant Retail Sales and a Preferred Customer Program.

It is in everyone’s interest, the company, distributors, the industry and regulators, to place an emphasis on retail sales to non-participant customers. After all, the business is called “direct selling,” and not “direct consumption.” The promotion of retailing should find a thread through every piece of company literature and advertising.

In addition the gold standard of retailing is the presence of non-participant preferred customers, i.e., those retail customers that are provided incentives and discounts to commit to monthly or orderly product purchases. From a legal standpoint, a robust preferred customer program makes the statement that there is a real market for the product and purchasers are purchasing because they want the product as opposed to being motivated by qualifying in the business opportunity.

4. Time to Rethink Personal/Group Volume Qualification Requirements for Active Status, Rank Status, Rank Advancement Commission Payout if the Volume is Based on Distributor Purchases that are Not Clearly Documented as End User Personal Use of Distributors or Retail Customers.

In fact, some leading direct selling companies have already initiated elimination of volume requirements for active status, fast start commissions, rank status, rank advancement and payment of enhanced commissions. The FTC has long expressed a deep concern for volume requirements that tend to trigger inventory loading or distributor purchases that are not driven by consumer demand, but instead for purposes of qualification.

Said Former FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez in her remarks at the DSA Business and Policy Conference in September, 2016:

Any requirements or incentives that participants purchase product for reasons other than satisfying genuine consumer demand—such as to join the business opportunity, maintain or advance their status, or qualify for compensation payments—are problematic.

In Vemma and Herbalife, companies were restricted on credit that could be accorded to distributor purchases, whether for personal use or resale. Many companies are reconsidering volume requirements that are documented as reasonable personal use or retail sales. Unless a company is prepared to track end destination of product, it should reconsider volume requirements that cause suspicion that the products are purchased to qualify and not driven by consumer need.

Above all, rewards should reasonably relate to sales to end users (personal use plus retail customers.

There are multiple approaches to compensation for multilevel payments on downline purchases.

(a)      The Herbalife settlement limited credit to downline distributor purchases (only about one-third of distributor purchases qualified for credit for MLM commissions.)

(b)      Pay MLM commissions only after verification of personal use or sale.

(c)      Pay MLM commissions at time of purchase, but absolutely track and verify personal use and sale of product purchased for resale.

5. Rethink Distributor Ordering Methods that Produce “Inventory Loading” Accusations. Use a Ramp-Up Authorization Approach that Authorizes Increasing Wholesale Orders Based on Demonstration of Retail Sales.

Above all: Do not allow distributors to purchase more than they can use for reasonable personal use and/or quantities for there is a realistic resale to retail consumer need.

Actually, in today’s world of next day UPS and FedEx, online ordering and direct to consumer shipping, there really is no need any more for large inventory purchases or stocking distributors.

Approaches for Avoiding Inventory Loading:

(a)      Eliminate or reduce volume requirements for active, rank, rank advancement.

(b)      Allow volume, but track and pay only on personal use level of volume or wholesale for resale volume that is verified sold to retail customers.

(c)      Limit amount of inventory or, at least, install a ramp-up authorization based on demonstrated sale and/or personal use.

6. Bulletproof Yourself on Earnings Claims. Don’t be the Nail that Sticks Up and Gets Hammered Down.

Avoid earnings hype in advertising, testimonials and lifestyle presentations. Scuttle the Maserati and the Tuscan villa images. Be realistic… this is the anomaly and not the norm. Take the bullseye off your forehead. In almost every FTC case, the first invitation to regulators is unrealistic earnings claims. The hype “opens” the door or lifts the canopy of the tent. And, as they say, “Once the camel has his nose in the tent, you can be assured that his ‘body’ will soon follow.”

In other words, don’t be the low-lying fruit. Don’t effectively, and unintentionally, “bait” the FTC to initiate an enforcement action by over-aggressive hype and promises. 

Absolutely do not make claims of wealth, fast wealth, easy money or sure-fire systems, nor effectively invite the FTC to inquire into a program based on earnings hype and systems based on distributor “purchasing” rather than distributor “selling” and “using.”

And whether legal or not, now is the time to “ditch” the pictures and videos of distributor mansions and luxury cars. Since such MLM driven lifestyles are clearly the exception to the rule, why wear a red flag in front of a “bull.”

7. Post a Transparent Earnings Disclosure.

As a general matter, the FTC is all about disclosure so that consumers can make informed decisions. Once you have a track record, post a simple and transparent average earnings disclosure. At a minimum, you should disclose:

(a)      What percentage of distributors who have signed up are active, i.e., earning any income?

(b)      Of those that are active, what is the average earnings?           (c)      If any example, testimonial or illustration of a particular income, bonus or lifestyle award is presented, what percentage of active distributors earn at least that amount or above?

(d)      Unless the company surveys average costs of doing business by distributors, earnings averages should be represented as “gross earnings” and that they are not “net earnings.”

(e)      Absolutely disclaim that any earnings illustrations are representations of an expectation of earnings.

(f)       “Pepper” promotional material with average earnings disclosures and disclaimers at every instance that an illustration/testimonial of earnings potential is provided.

(g)      Either calculate average business costs to disclose net earnings or specifically disclose that average earnings are presented as “gross,” as opposed to “net” and do not take into account distributor business costs.

Irrespective of the depth of the earnings disclosure, do not ever play fast and loose with earnings disclosures, nor “parse” to exaggerate the opportunity.

During his presentation to the DSA Legal and Regulatory Conference, FTC Director raised a new “ask” by the FTC. He suggested that companies should not only present gross earnings, but should also present net earnings which take into account costs of doing business by distributors. Upon questioning, he recognized that this may be a daunting task. At the very least, he suggested that companies should disclose that their typical average earnings disclosures are “gross earnings” and, not net earnings, i.e., they do not take into account distributor costs of doing business. Look for more of this “ask” in the future.

8.  Adopt, Follow and Enforce the Amway Safeguards.

The Amway safeguards have been the gold standard and been honored in case after case going on 40 years. Although the FTC may wish to pivot away from the Amway safeguards, the courts have not done so.

(a)      70% rule to avoid inventory loading … no ordering unless 70% of previous orders have been sold or used for personal/family use. Place lids on initial orders and allow a ramp up of size of order over time. Never mandate monthly autoship to qualify for commissions. And avoid front-loading. In the famous Omnitrition case, the court noted that the Amway safeguards are rendered ineffectual as a defense to pyramiding if a company encourages or allows front-loading of product because it becomes clear that commissions are not related to sales to ultimate users when distributors are incentivized to buy huge amounts of inventory that are out of proportion to needs for resale or the needs of personal and family use.

(b)      Adopt and enforce an actual nonparticipant retail sales mandate to qualify to receive commissions. Over the years, that number has been expressed in numbers from five to ten or in sales volume … often with an allowable ramp up over time.

(c)      Honor a buyback policy on inventory and sales support materials for terminating distributors…no less than 90% for 12 months.

9. Consider a Reclassification Program to Convert Non-Earning Distributors to Preferred Customers.

In a new FTC enforcement era, the “name of the game” is demonstrating high ratios of non-participant retail customers to active distributors. In the retailing analysis, non-participant retail customers, who are provided discounts or other incentives in exchange for signing up as “preferred customers,” are like “gold” in “upping” the ratios. Watch for direct selling companies to use major initiatives to convert to preferred customers distributors who are loyal product purchasers, but who are not really “working the opportunity,” i.e., low or no earning in the direct selling opportunity.

The conversion can be voluntary or non-voluntary.

1. Voluntary.

For instance, in the Herbalife settlement, Herbalife was given nine months to work on a reclassification of brand loyal, but low earning distributors, to preferred customers so that the non-participant retailing ratios would be increased for personal use purchases. Other leading companies, such as USANA, followed suit, substantially increasing retailing ratios.

2. Involuntary.

Another path that companies may wish to consider is automatic involuntary conversion. Under this approach a company would adopt an automatic reclassification program that automatically reclassifies non-earning independent representatives to preferred retail customers, all the while providing superb discount pricing, special customer benefits, generous customer appreciation referral rewards. If the converted preferred customer later decides to reactivate, the company might even consider providing an option for the right, after a waiting period or based on customer referral activity, to re-sign up as an active independent representative in a reserved genealogical downline position.

10. Promote Industry Guidance on Compliant Compensation Plans.

Similar to the DSA initiative on earnings claims compliance of the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), support the launch of a DSA task force to develop best practices compensation plan guidelines and to continuously audit and constructively advise member DSA companies for avoiding pyramiding accusations of the sort raised by the FTC in Vemma, Herbalife and AdvoCare.

11. Support Clear Federal Legislation on Direct Selling.

Companies should actively support DSA federal legislative action to set forth clear anti-pyramiding guidelines so that the FTC, states and companies are playing on the same field with the same rules and goalpost settings.

See Original FTC Advocare Documents:

FTC v. Advocare Complaint

FTC v. Advocare Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment

FTC v. Advocare Press Release and Blog Announcement

Jeffrey A. Babener, of Portland, Oregon, is the principal attorney in the law firm of Babener & Associates. For more than 30 years, he has advised leading U.S. and foreign companies in the direct selling industry, including many members of the Direct Selling Association. He has served as legal advisor to various major direct selling companies, including Avon, Amway, Herbalife, USANA, and NuSkin. He has lectured and published extensively on direct selling and many of his writings will be found at mlmlegal.com, of which he is Editor. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California Law School, where he was an editor of the USC Law Review. Post USC Law, he served a one-year term appointment as a law clerk to Hon. David W. Williams, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. He is an active member of the State Bars of California and Oregon.

Read the article and supplemental material at www.mlmlegal.com.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

There are two issues that have surfaced in recent years: 1) social networking, and 2) frequent migration of distributors between companies. With social networking concerns, companies have had to decide on positive protocol for consultants who socialize through technology. In terms of the migration of consultants, companies have often found themselves constantly revisiting policy that both protect the livelihood of all its distributors while also protecting the interest of the company. These issues are constantly under review. Most companies continue to revisit these issues multiple times.

Certainly, it’s not a good idea to make frequent changes in a compensation plan because it undermines faith in the company. Companies should also try and limit the number of changes in basic agreements and also be able to justify any of the changes being made. Companies that claim to be partners with their consultants should walk the talk. They should be saying that their interest lies in protecting distributors and consumers, not just the company. They have a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of thousands, or millions, of consultants who depend on income from the company. This is important because when companies disassemble, consultants who have spent all of their time building organizations and find them being stolen or taken elsewhere are deeply hurt.

In the direct selling industry, the word ‘change’ can send a certain group of people into orbit. Companies that are making adjustments or enhancements to their policies and procedures or compensation plan must carefully communicate those changes to sellers, especially the leadership of the company. Leaders need to be prepared to deliver messages and to have the messages palatable to the rest of the sales force.

If you are interested in attending the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Companyconference visit our conference page, view our speaker list, or get more details. All executives/owners of direct selling companies are welcome to attend. Call 800-231-2162 to register.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

The MLM industry has, during the last 20 years, developed positive working relationships with regulatory agencies such as attorneys general and the FTC (Federal Trade Commission). There was a time, however, back in the 1970s, when the FTC challenged the legitimacy of the direct selling industry as being a pyramid scheme. They accused Amway of operating illegally and Amway prevailed in a very famous 1979 case [below] where it was held that the network marketing industry is a legitimate business model and the business opportunity is not a pyramid scheme.

No legal ruling has been more impactful on the direct sales industry than The Landmark Amway Case.

Afterwards, regulatory agencies and the industry went quiet until the 1990s when it was questioned whether or not product-using consultants were a legitimate end-destination for products or whether consultants were simply retail customers. There has been an ongoing tug of war between the MLM industry and the FTC in terms of determining whether or not personal use should have an impact on a company’s legitimate operations. The industry, with the cooperation of attorneys generals in more than a dozen states, were able to amend legislation in those states to recognize that personal use of product by distributors is a legitimate end-destination, just as if it were a retail sale.

More recently, about four years ago, the FTC decided to update its Business Opportunity Rule [below] (which is more oriented toward franchises or programs that require substantial investments). The proposed draft would have completely encompassed direct selling companies to the point that it would have been onerous to offer a MLM, network marketing, direct selling opportunity in the marketplace.

Read the article “FTC Exempts MLM/Direct Selling from FTC Revised Proposed Business Opportunity Rule.”

For instance, one of the proposed rules would have stated that if you approached your neighbor, for instance, about joining a network marketing company then you would have to wait a week before returning to follow up with them on their decision. This waiting period would not have been very conducive to offering a business opportunity, and therefore, not very practical for the network marketing industry. The industry responded to the proposed rule. Over 17,000 comments poured into the FTC from MLMLegal.com, the DSWA, the DSA, distributor associations, and direct selling companies indicating that they thought the rule was overreaching.

The net result gave rise to the FTC amending its proposed rule to carve out an exception for direct selling/MLM companies. Direct selling companies would not be included in the rule. This was a victory for the industry since it didn’t want onerous rules inhibiting the more than 15-16 million people in the U.S. industry from operating a legitimate MLM business.

At this time, we are in a fairly good regulatory environment. Every direct selling company at any one time, however, is being sent questions of inquiry from regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general. This is simply part of doing business in this industry. So, when you see that a company has been sent inquiries or investigative demands from regulatory agencies, it’s not always a good idea to jump to conclusions about the legitimacy of its operations. The regulatory agencies are just doing their job.

In the end there is always a balance of regulation that needs to be reached. Direct selling companies do it best when they take some initiative on their own to promote consumer protection by looking out for both their consumers and consultants. The reason the FTC ratcheted back on the business opportunity is because of the large influx of comments that flooded in from industry leaders, including MLMLegal.com and the DSWA. Industry-leading groups have the ability to mobilize large groups of people who are passionate about the network marketing industry and that helps our industry serve a great purpose.

MLMLegal.com keeps you updated on changes being made in the direct sales regulatory environment. Visit our network marketing news pages or MLMLegal.com for the latest information on the network marketing industry.

If you are interested in attending the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Companyconference visit our conference page, view our speaker list, or get more details. All executives/owners of direct selling companies are welcome to attend. Call 800-231-2162 to register.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

The issue of depth of levels seemed to be a major focus prior to the internet and other non-postal (mail) means of communication. In the late 1980’s, the U.S. Postal service examined the numbers of compensation plan levels to make a determination, whether or not, in its opinion, the depth of levels created a “lottery” element under U.S. Postal lottery laws, that forbid payment based on chance.

Various cases and consents sorted out a safe harbor (at least from the U.S. Postal Office standpoint) for at least four levels (not necessarily agreed to by the direct selling industry). Separately, the Postal Service looked for evidence of “supervisory requirements.” Most companies adopted specific supervisory requirements of sponsors to demonstrate some managerial activity by distributors.

For the past 25 years, little recruitment activity is conducted by U.S. mail and it has been a long time since the U.S. Postal Service has expressed a serious interest in this subject. The issue of levels in a company’s compensation plan has not been the focus of the FTC or state attorneys general in the enforcement of pyramid laws. Instead, the focus for the last two decades has been on the whether or not product/service is purchased in reasonable amounts, the presence of anti-inventory loading and “buyback” rules and an emphasis of sale of product/service to the “ultimate user” as opposed to an emphasis on mere recruitment of new distributors whose primary motivation to make payments or purchases is to qualify in the income opportunity.

Watch the video for a detailed explanation by Jeff Babener, Editor of MLMLegal.com. View all of our new videos and more on our new and improved website: MLMLegal.com!

MLMLegal.com is bustling with educational content for direct sellers and startup/existing MLM companies! Be sure to visit us often!

If you are interested in attending the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company conference visit our conference page, view our speaker list, or get more details. All executives/owners of direct selling companies are welcome to attend. Call 800-231-2162 to register.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

Sign up for the MLM News Global newsletter for top headlines, news stories, scam alerts, videos, articles, and more information on the network marketing industry.

Vocal critics are abundant in the direct selling industry, but the positives drown out the negatives. It’s not hard to find a loud voice criticizing the direct selling industry through a quick Google search. And it is true… there are many pyramid/Ponzi schemes, primarily internationally based, that parade themselves as MLM/direct delling… and they are not. They are merely pyramid headhunting recruitment schemes that often use bogus products and services as an excuse to move money. The entire emphasis of such organizations is to cause investors to pay money and cause others to do the same, with a thin veneer of an actual product or service. In fact, the revenue to pay commissions instead comes from distributor payments and not sales to the ultimate user.

Despite this, the facts remains MLM and direct selling are a major part of the fabric of commerce. Statistics on 2014 sales, compiled by the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations, indicate global sales of $183 billion and 100 million distributors. In the U.S., there are 18 million distributors posting $35 billion in sales. Numerous direct selling companies are traded on the NYSE.

Many direct selling companies have histories dating back to the 1800s (see our MLM company profiles page to read over 700 MLM company profiles). Avon, alone, dates back 130 years. Companies like Avon, Mary Kay, and Tupperware have long and credible company histories and support thousands of households in the U.S. and internationally. Network marketing has a lengthy history of reputable companies. This industry supports millions of independent consultants in the United States and abroad.

Finding a Good MLM Company

How do you find a good MLM company for you? There are ways to make sure that a direct selling company is a good business and ethical. First, contact the industry association websites, such as the Direct Selling Association (DSA), to see if the company is a member and if they abide by the DSA’s Code of Ethics.

Secondly, if you’re considering becoming a part of a startup network marketing company, learn how to recognize some red flags. Is the company offering a tangible product or service? Make sure that the company offers a product or service, and not something intangible, such as prayers or wishes. Does the company ask for an unreasonably-high investment to join? Startup kits average anywhere from $50-$150. If a company is asking for $500 for their startup kit, perhaps you should begin asking more questions. This alone is not a sign of a company operating illegally, but can be a sign to look for additional clues for questionable practices. Does the company focus its mission on primarily recruiting new members and not focus on the sale of product (or service) to the end consumer? A legally-operated MLM company will have a primary focus of selling products (or services) to the consumer, not just in recruiting new consultants.

Be sure to investigate any opportunity that you are considering joining and due your own due diligence. And, if you are starting your own network marketing company, it would be wise of you to hire a credible MLM attorney that specializes in direct selling law.

And probably your best educational resource: check out the hundreds of articles, videos, company profiles, etc. at MLMLegal.com.

If you are interested in attending the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company conference visit our conference page, view our speaker list, or get more details. All executives/owners of direct selling companies are welcome to attend. Call 800-231-2162 to register.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

Sign up today at http://www.mlmnewsglobal.com/.

This newsletter offers recent news, videos, company profiles, and weekly articles delivered to your inbox on a timely basis. Each newsletter contains top news stories in the network marketing industry, the most recent MLM scam alerts, timely articles on the direct selling industry, and so much more.

Make sure you’re not the last to know about top MLM news stories, or to hear about the latest scam reports. Our timely headline reporting will keep you up-to-date on stories that affect everyone in the network marketing industry.

We will also make sure you receive a “Video of the Week” on industry educational topics, such as distributor education, industry Q&A, executive interviews, MLM startup, and pyramid schemes.

Each newsletter features the profile of a direct selling company, like Avon, Mary Kay, and Amway, or perhaps a startup multilevel marketing company that you haven’t heard about yet! MLM News Global also highlights two featured articles on industry-related topics, such as pyramid schemes, compensation plans, recruiting, lead generation, legal analysis, software, and more.

The MLM News Global Newsletter is presented by industry educator, MLM legal expert, and network marketing business consultant, Attorney Jeff Babener.

Sign up today to receive valuable MLM, network marketing, direct selling content, an imperative to anyone in the direct selling industry. Join our newsletter today!

Check out our Archives for past issues.

Learn more business tips at www.mlmlegal.com and www.mlmattorney.com.

If you are interested in attending the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company conference visit our conference page, view our speaker list, or get more details. All executives/owners of direct selling companies are welcome to attend. Call 800-231-2162 to register.

Our next Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company Conference takes place in Las Vegas. View our conference flyer and speaker list online.

If you’re reading this blog post and the conference dates above have passed, check our website for the current conference dates.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

MLM Expert Attorney, Jeff Babener offers ten FTC vs. Vemma litigation bullet points.

On August 17, 2015, the FTC filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Arizona, seeking a permanent injunction against Tempe-based Vemma International Holdings, Inc., a long-time direct selling marketer of health-related products. The FTC was successful in obtaining a temporary restraining order, which shut the company and froze its assets. Further proceedings for a hearing on a preliminary and permanent injunction and other relief were set to the future.

Such a scenario has been a common approach for the FTC. The most recent actions resulted in permanent injunctions against BurnLounge and Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing. For a summary of the most significant federal actions during the past few decades, please see:

Herbalife: What Short Sellers Missed on the Way to the Press Conference…

Jeffrey Babener (2013)

The primary accusation against Vemma is that its program focused on recruitment rather than sale of product to the ultimate user, thus rendering the program a pyramid scheme and a deceptive practice under FTC legislation. In addition, the FTC has charged that Vemma is deceptive in its earnings representations.

FTC vs. Vemma Litigation Bullet Points:

1. (a) This case affirms the BurnLounge standard requiring emphasis on sales to ultimate users, which includes nonparticipant retail customers and personal use in reasonable amounts. Primary motivation for distributor purchases should be destination to ultimate users and not to qualify in the plan for compensation.

See: BurnLounge Appeal Decision: Guidance on Pyramid v Legitimate MLM and the Role of Personal Use in Pyramid Analysis

Jeffrey Babener (2014)

(b)       Contrary to some industry comment, autoship is not under attack, but rather the method of its promotion and implementation and amount, which suggests the primary motivation for purchasing is not for sales to retail customers/ultimate users or reasonable amounts for personal use, but rather to induce purchasing to qualify for commissions in the plan.

(c)        A similar analysis is applicable to up-front, fast-start packages.

2. The FTC alleges several accusations that Vemma is not complying with the BurnLounge standard, and, thus is a pyramid.

(a)       Emphasis not on use or retail but purchasing to qualify.

(b)       Distributors are told to give away product.

(c)        Little evidence of retailing or emphasis on retailing or teaching or training to retail.

(d)       Up-front emphasis on buying fast-start packs of $500-$600, plus sign up for $150 per month autoship to qualify for commissions, rather than servicing an actual need.

(e)       The FTC asserts that the Vemma program emphasis was about distributor purchasing and getting recruits to do the same, rather than sale of product in reasonable amounts for the needs of retail sales and personal use by distributors.

(f)        And the FTC no doubt had complaints from parents of college students, and parent lawyers, for targeting vulnerable college age students with promises of fast wealth from working “the system” of buying and recruiting. The FTC complaint focused heavily on accusing Vemma of abuse by targeting young individuals. Clearly, this is a sore point for the FTC, and it has been a concern of some industry observers even prior to the FTC case. The last time this criticism was made was when Equinox and Trek Alliance were shut by the FTC for the same reasons. In a way, this action is Equinox redux.

3. The FTC does not condemn, nor attack the MLM model (nor personal use), but rather goes out of its way to call out Vemma practices, which it contends makes Vemma an illegitimate pyramid. (See the FTC press release and complaint for FTC’s highly pejorative characterization of the facts.)

“…an alleged pyramid scheme, Vemma Nutrition Company, that lures college students and other young adults with the prospect of getting rich without having a traditional 9-to-5 job.”

‘Rather than focusing on selling products, Vemma uses false promises of high income potential to convince consumers to pay money to join their organization,’ said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.”

4. Vemma is accused by the FTC of deceptive earnings claims, potentials and hypotheticals as to how distributors could earn substantial income. Vemma published an earnings disclosure, but it was inadequate and deceptive to show the entire picture by limiting disclosure to earnings of active distributors rather than disclosing earnings of all individuals who signed up, of which the vast majority had no income.

5. Autoship: Rumors of its demise are exaggerated. In the future, autoship will continue as a form of orderly ordering… the legal key will be “tracking” how that product is consumed or sold to ultimate users. After the Vemma case, all other cases will demand “tracking” evidence to determine what will clearly become cases that are “fact driven.”

6. As the FTC v. Vemma action unfolds, the outcome will be “fact driven” on the issue of “primary motivation” for distributor purchasing. The FTC has made it clear that it believes that the facts show that Vemma operated a “recruitment” machine that targets college age students with promises of wealth for merely using the system to “buy and recruit” rather than “sell and use,” i.e., per BurnLounge, the product was incidental to the opportunity. The FTC’s complaint does its best to present a factual picture that the Vemma program implementation and distributor purchasing patterns are dominated by “recruitment and qualify” motivation rather than sales to be used by “ultimate users,” whether they be outside retail customers or distributors for personal use.

7. Of course, Vemma will argue a completely different characterization of the facts. Vemma will be obliged to prove the opposite. The “facts” will determine the outcome.

If the FTC allegations on incomplete earnings disclosure are correct, the FTC has a point that merits correction… But certainly not a shut down.

If the FTC is factually supported that distributor purchases are “dead ended” to garages and basements or given away, then there is a real pyramid problem. 

However, if Vemma can demonstrate that distributor purchases actually make their way to “ultimate users,” whether retail customers or personal use in reasonable amounts, then the wholesale ordering mechanisms of fast start packages and autoship subscriptions are not really a challenge for pyramid analysis.
The entire direct selling industry has been offering fast start packages and autoship ordering for a half century. If product is making its way to a destination to be used by ultimate users, then a program is a legitimate direct selling/MLM program, and not a pyramid.

8. How will the facts play out? Without extensive discovery, it cannot be determined at this stage. (Presumably, in its sealed filing, the FTC provided significant fact scenarios to support its position). However, if extensive discovery is needed at this point, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seem inappropriate on the pyramid issue, particularly for a company, Vemma, whose roots, including its predecessor company from which Vemma was “spun out,” New Vision, go back almost 25 years. Nevertheless, this is a reality of this matter. Historically, the FTC has done a good job on the “fact gathering” even though it has been wrong on or misstated the state of pyramid law. (It was roundly rebuked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for its stated legal position that distributor “personal use” should not be considered in pyramid analysis.)

9. How long will this litigation process take? Had the FTC merely asked for injunctive relief and a preliminary injunction, Vemma would be in a stronger position to see through the litigation. However, the fact that the court ordered an asset freeze and appointed a receiver does not bode well for Vemma. And although a preliminary injunction hearing was set for a very short period of time after the temporary restraining order, case history suggests that most companies, including Vemma, are not prepared to present factual testimony at a preliminary injunction hearing on short notice. The net result is that companies often stipulate to continue the temporary restraining order for months while they gather evidence. And the remainder of the litigation may go on for months or years all the while that a company is shut down and not in control of its assets. Similar scheduling scenarios for companies such as BurnLounge, Fortune High Tech Marketing, Equinox, Trek Alliance, spelled a death knell to the future of those companies, all of whom became “dead man walking.”

In the last two decades, MLM companies, which have been subject to a receiver and asset freeze at the commencement of FTC litigation, have not emerged “alive.” If Vemma survives the process, it may be viewed by some as an outlier. Unless Vemma can immediately compile a mountain of evidence to refute the FTC fact allegations on “product movement,” it is more than an uphill battle.

10. Lessons learned for the future for MLM companies… and for which they should start “yesterday:”

(a) Track product to its final destination. Bottom line, is that companies should be able to document that product makes its way on to and is used by ultimate users.

(b) Marketing emphasis should always be on product first, and opportunity second.

(c) Employ procedures to avoid inventory loading.

(d) Employ procedures to mandate and guarantee retailing.

(e) Do not make claims of wealth, fast wealth, easy money, or sure fire systems, nor effectively invite the FTC to inquire into a program based on earnings hype and systems based on distributor “purchasing” rather than distributor “selling” and “using.”

(f) Do not boldly target demographic markets that the FTC might view as vulnerable to hype and abuse. Such groups may be young people or poor populations.

(g) Do not play fast and loose with earnings disclosures. To be transparent, always indicate the percentage of new sign ups who have no earnings, i.e., what percentage of new distributors actually make money.

In FTC vs. Vemma, who owns the facts?

BurnLounge set the standard for years to come. The decision in case after case, including FTC vs. Vemma, will be “fact driven“… is distributor behavior driven by product sales to the ultimate user or is it driven by recruitment?

In the end, he, who owns the facts, will prevail.

Stay Tuned.

For detailed analysis of the Vemma case and an actual copy of the FTC vs. Vemma lawsuit, please visit www.mlmlegal.com 

Jeffrey A. Babener, of Portland, Oregon, is the principal attorney in the law firm of Babener & Associates. For more than 30 years, he has advised leading U.S. and foreign companies in the direct selling industry, including many members of the Direct Selling Association. He has served as legal advisor to various NYSE direct selling companies, including Avon, Herbalife, USANA, NuSkin, etc. He has lectured and published extensively on direct selling and many of his writings will be found at www.mlmlegal.com , of which he is Editor. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California Law School, where he was an editor of the USC Law Review. Post-USC Law, he served a one-year term appointment as a law clerk to the Hon. David W. Williams, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Mr. Babener is an active member of the State Bars of California and Oregon. He has served as trial counsel in numerous direct selling cases in federal and state courts for 30 years.

If you are interested in attending the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company conference visit our conference page, view our speaker list, or get more details. All executives/owners of direct selling companies are welcome to attend. Call 800-231-2162 to register.

Our next Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company Conference takes place October 22 and 23, 2015 in Las Vegas. View our conference flyer and speaker list online. Participate in our Innovation Campaign for your chance to receive TWO FREE TICKETS to attend our next conference.

If you’re reading this blog post and the conference dates above have passed, check our website for the current conference dates.

Sign up for the MLM News Global newsletter for top headlines, news stories, scam alerts, videos, articles, and more information on the network marketing industry.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

A Conversation with Jeff Babener Video Series: Learn about the difference between the various compensation plans and how distributors are compensated with each plan. It’s called multi-level marketing since distributors are compensated at each level as they recruit more consultants. How many levels are distributors compensated at? Learn about breakaway compensation plans. Learn the difference between sponsors and recruits. Get the definition of each unique compensation plan and which plans are most common and which are less successful. How many levels deep is it most common to go, and legal, to go?

When does a compensation plan become a lottery, which is considered legal by many states? Which programs have stood the test of time, and which have gone by the wayside? Which compensation plan should you choose so that your company is legal and stands the test of time? Learn how to ask the right questions to determine a legitimate operating MLM company vs. a pyramid scheme. Watch the video.

Keep yourself educated on the legal aspects of the MLM industry. Visit MLMLegal.com. Are you starting a MLM company? Make sure you have your legal aspects covered. Contact legal MLM expert Jeff Babener for your free legal consultation today.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

Multi-level marketing is a diverse and varied industry, employing many different structures and methods of selling.

Although there may be significant differences in how multi-level marketers sell their products or services, core consumer protection principles are applicable to every member of the industry. The Commission staff offers this non-binding guidance to assist multi-level marketers in applying those core principles to their business practices.

The FTC offers 18 common questions about MLM and running a direct selling business.

1. What is direct selling? What is multi-level marketing?

Direct selling is a blanket term that encompasses a variety of business forms premised on person-to-person selling in locations other than a retail establishment, such as social media platforms or the home of the salesperson or prospective customer.

Multi-level marketing is one form of direct selling. Generally, a multi-level marketer (MLM) distributes products or services through a network of salespeople who are not employees of the company and do not receive a salary or wage. Instead, members of the company’s salesforce usually are treated as independent contractors, who may earn income depending on their own revenues and expenses. Typically, the company does not directly recruit its salesforce, but relies upon its existing salespeople to recruit additional salespeople, which creates multiple levels of “distributors” or “participants” organized in “downlines.” A participant’s “downline” is the network of his or her recruits, and recruits of those recruits, and so on.

2. Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, what is an MLM with an unlawful compensation structure, which is sometimes called a pyramid scheme?

The most widely-cited description of an unlawful MLM structure appears in the FTC’s Koscot decision, which observed that such enterprises are “characterized by the payment by participants of money to the company in return for which they receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to the sale of the product to ultimate users.” In re Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 86 F.T.C. 1106, 1181 (1975).1

1 This document is focused specifically on MLM practices that may violate the FTC Act. It does not address other types of unlawful structures that do not involve the right to sell a product or service, such as chain referral schemes (sometimes called “chain letters”) and Ponzi schemes.

3. How do MLMs with unfair or deceptive compensation structures harm consumers?

READ MORE.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

With the costs of the compensation plan, attorney’s fees, software, hiring staff, recruiting consultants, creating/designing products, the list goes on… starting a direct selling company can be expensive and difficult! We understand how complex it is to tackle a MLM startup. That’s why we offer the Starting and Running the Successful MLM Company Conference.

We offer MLM entrepreneurs a way to network with experts from all sectors of the direct selling industry: legal, recruiting, technology/software, compensation plans, funding, generate leads, website and back office, business model, and more – all in one place, for one affordable price ($195 for the first attendee, each additional is $150).

So, if you’re starting a MLM, network marketing, direct selling company, or just thinking about starting a MLM company, come join us at the MLM Startup Event/Seminar in Las Vegas! The Hosts are Business Consultant and MLM Legal Expert, Jeff Babener, and MLM Compensation Plan Consultant, Mike Sheffield.

Our next conference takes place October 25 & 26, 2018 in Las Vegas (who doesn’t want a good reason to go to Las Vegas?). We even offer the Innovation Campaign for those who are on an even tighter budget.

Visit our website, www.mlmlegal.com, or our conference page to learn more and to see the full line-up of speakers. Read testimonials and watch our invitation videos. Anyone who is starting or running a MLM, network marketing, direct selling, party plan company is welcome to attend.

Call us at 800-231-2162 to register.

If you’re reading this blog post and the conference dates above have passed, check our website for the current conference dates.

Sign up for the MLM News Global newsletter for top headlines, news stories, scam alerts, videos, articles, and more information on the network marketing industry.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.