Yep, we’ve got another lawsuit folks! LuLaRoe Lawsuits are now at FOURTEEN and there may be more coming today – stay tuned! The other two retailer class action proposed suits are here and here.
The latest suit is against LuLaRoe for being a pyramid scheme (which they are) BUT this one EXCLUDES anyone that had a rank OTHER than retailer. This EXCLUDES all Mentors, Coaches, Trainers and Sponsors. I can’t say that I agree with this in all instances: there are situations in which someone sponsored one or two people and may never have made any bonus from them. I think that setting an amount, for example; if they made more than $500 or $1000 in bonuses, that would excluded them. See image below.
This is the first one of its kind. By making this kind of statement with this latest lawsuit, it truly is hard to refute that LuLaRoe is a pyramid scheme. I hear all the upline Kool Aid drinkers talking about how they get paid on SALES and not on purchases. Girl, you may be trying to forget, but THAT JUST STARTED ON JULY 1ST. For the four YEARS and THREE months prior, bonuses were paid on PURCHASES OF INVENTORY, which definitely qualifies LuLaRoe as a pyramid scheme. Get your collective heads out of your asses and smell the coffee, yo.
Do you really think that LuLaRoe changed the bonus plan and paid DOUBLE bonuses (bonuses were paid on purchases and then paid again when they sold) JUST because they felt it was the right thing to do? Ummmmm…..NO. They changes the bonus structure because they were performing as a pyramid scheme! It was to protect their asses – nothing more and nothing less!
Do you remember this little diddy? This image was put out by LuLaRoe as an example of how fast you’d be able to pay back your initial investment and were touted as conservative. I know that this was one of the key factor to which I paid close attention when I was researching onboarding. I’m quite sure others relied on this as well. This disclaimer was UNDER this image.
These are false income claims, folks, and that’s illegal. I have no idea why LuLaRoe thought that they would get away with this for SO FUCKING LONG. Just because they changed their tune in July won’t save them now. The grave has been dug and their feet are up in the air. I’m just waiting to hear the “thud”.
LuLaRoe Lawsuits are now at FOURTEEN, and I think we’ll see a couple more before the day is up. Research from Becca shows that there maybe be three more in the lower courts. Stay tuned! More to come!
ALL CONTENT QUALIFIES UNDER FAIR USE POLICY.
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING, PYRAMID SCHEMES, AND TACTLESS AND INSENSITIVE SELLING METHODS, BLATANTLY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A ‘FAIR USE’ OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML
IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND ‘FAIR USE’, YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.
THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES A “FAIR USE” OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. SECTION 107 OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT STATES:
“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”
THIS BLOG AND MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, IN GENERAL, MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.