Shaun Carter dot Com » Blog Archive » Amway Versus The Internet
I am hearing from many TEAM IBO’s that volume in their organizations is down over 50% and some have lost nearly all of their volume as the TEAM IBO’s abandon the Quixtar ship. It will be interesting to see how much of an effect this will have on Quixtar/Amway sales for the year.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Archived under Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits, Quixtar Experiences Comments
Network Marketing Today: Amway UK: Cleaning House
Alticor, parent of Amway and Quixtar, continue to forge ahead in their drive to restore marketplace respectability. Some time ago, Alticor announced that it would be phasing out Quixtar in North America and returning to their time-honored brand, Amway.More changes here ….
Powered by ScribeFire.
Archived under Amway, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
The Associated Press: Quixtar Sues 30 Over Web Remarks
GRAND HAVEN, Mich. (AP) — Direct-marketing firm Quixtar Inc., a
sister company of Amway Corp., has sued 30 people who anonymously
posted what it considers disparaging remarks about Quixtar in blogs and
online forums and in YouTube.com videos.In the lawsuit filed
this past week in Ottawa County Circuit Court, Quixtar seeks an
injunction and damages of more than $25,000 against the posters,
identified only as John Does.Quixtar believes the videos and
other postings are part of an organized effort by former distributors
who unsuccessfully sued Alticor and are under court order not to
disparage the company or disclose proprietary information, according to
the lawsuit.In one video the lawsuit cites, a man wearing a
shirt that says “Property of Quixtar” rants about the company. In
another, a man points out products at a grocery store priced much lower
than comparable Quixtar products.Quixtar plans to ask for
permission to subpoena various online companies to figure out who
posted the materials, spokesman Rob Zeiger said.Quixtar develops
and manufactures nutrition, beauty and cleaning products that are
marketed through a tiered selling system. Parent company Alticor Inc.
uses the Quixtar name for its U.S. and Canadian direct sales unit and
sells products throughout the rest of the world as Amway Corp.Alticor,
a $6.3 billion company based in Ada, Mich., announced in June that it
will start phasing out the Quixtar name and rebuilding its Amway brand
in the U.S. and Canada.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Archived under Amway, Quixtar News, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
Testimony continues in the case against a group of former Quixtar distributors, as lawyers for the e-commerce arm of Alticor claim those former distributors violated an August court order.At that time, the judge ruled the distributors, who were fired from Quixtar, must stop using sales training and other material supplied by Quixtar to the company. Those distributors were part of an effort to convince large numbers of other distributors to leave Quixtar.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Archived under Amway, Quixtar News, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
Rumors are running around the Orrin Woodward and the TEAM have lined up a high level supplier for their new Network Marketing company, Quixtar now has a restraining order against the TEAM leaders. TEAM leaders are not even supposed to talk to their Quixtar IBOs.
Will the TEAM survive?
Archived under Quixtar Support Systems, XS Energy Drink, Amway, Quixtar News, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments (1)
LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–A group including eight of the largest distributors of Quixtar Inc., a sister company of Amway Corporation, today filed a class-action lawsuit against Quixtar seeking a declaration that all distributor contracts with Quixtar, and the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions in particular, are unenforceable due to illegality and/or frustration of purpose. The plaintiffs allege that Quixtar knowingly operates as a pyramid scheme and that it prevents distributors from leaving the organization through the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.
The plaintiffs assert in the complaint that they merely want to allow distributors to leave the Quixtar organization and, to further that effort, they also intend to seek a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Quixtar from enforcing or attempting to enforce the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.
“Many of the plaintiffs have had close relationships with Quixtar’s founders as well as executive management for nearly three decades and have regularly pleaded with management to address these provisions, as well as the overpriced nature of the products,” stated D.J. Poyfair, an attorney for Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The complaint clearly illustrates that Quixtar has acknowledged that distributors can not sell the company’s products retail on the open market while encouraging them to recruit new distributors.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal district court, central district of California, western division. The proposed class representatives are a group of 15 Quixtar distributors, one of whom has been an Amway and/or Quixtar distributor since 1973, and many of whom have been distributors since the 1990s.
Quixtar, an e-commerce company founded by Amway in 1999, is a unit of Alticor, Inc., which is owned by Amway’s founding DeVos and Van Andel families. It essentially is the U.S. operation of the old Amway operation, which no longer operates under that name in the U.S. Alticor also is the parent of Amway, which only operates under that name outside the U.S., as well as Access Business Group, LLC, which manufactures the products sold by both Quixtar and Amway.
“We are not seeking damages against Quixtar, or to shut Quixtar down,” stated Billy Florence of Athens, Georgia, a distributor since 1974, who noted recent regulatory inquiries into Amway in India and the U.K. “Rather, we merely seek a judicial declaration that the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions are unenforceable, so distributors who choose to do so can extricate themselves from continued forced participation in Quixtar’s illegal pyramid scheme and pursue legitimate business opportunities instead.”
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs assert Amway viewed the Quixtar launch “as its chance to make a second, and this time good, first impression on the network marketing industry in the United States and created new products, with a fresh plan for success.” They claim, however, that Quixtar instead adopted Amway’s existing business model, which by this time had been sharply criticized in the media, in lawsuits and by distributors.
According to the lawsuit, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began examining Amway’s business model in the late 1970s to determine whether it was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. The examiners concluded that because Amway’s products were capable of being sold in the retail market, it was not a pyramid scheme; however, the company had to adopt – and enforce – certain rules designed to avoid the Koscot characteristics of an illegal pyramid scheme. The company needed to comply with these rules or it would be deemed an illegal pyramid scheme. Today, plaintiffs assert that Quixtar does not enforce any of these rules.
Since its start-up, the lawsuit claims, Quixtar products have become significantly overpriced, “and are thus not sellable in the retail market.” In fact, the action asserts that it is “widely understood in Quixtar for years that (distributors) buy Quixtar products mostly to earn commissions or bonuses,” rather than to sell the products to retail purchasers. The plaintiffs allege that only 3.4% of Quixtar’s sales are sold to customers outside Quixtar’s distributor network.
“Instead of focusing on reducing prices across the board on products, Quixtar has resorted to marketing the products solely to its distributors,” the complaint asserts. In fact, “President Doug DeVos himself has stated … that ‘Quixtar is an internal consumption company,’ not a retail sales company,” the lawsuit asserts.
Further, the plaintiffs assert that since Quixtar’s products are “unmarketable to those not participating in Quixtar’s comp plan, the sole way to make money is for a (distributor) to continually recruit new distributors who are also willing to buy and self-consume, or give away, the Quixtar products. This fact alone renders Quixtar a classic recruitment pyramid scheme.”
Finally, the complaint sharply criticizes Quixtar’s non-competition and non-solicitation rules. “The Quixtar business model is brilliant if you are a member of the DeVos or Van Andel families,” it asserts. “Elevate the price of all products to gain an alarmingly high profit margin for the company. Market the company as a business opportunity, promising retail saleability, to get unsuspecting distributors to purchase products at exorbitant prices while investing their time and energies promoting the business opportunity. Offer monetary rewards to incentivize distributors to recruit new distributors who also buy the company’s products. Teach all distributors to consume the products that cannot be sold, which is all of the products. Trap the distributors, a.k.a. the consumers, from leaving the company with a non-competition clause. Penalize those who attempt exodus with heavy-handed sanctions imposed by the only judge in town, Judge Quixtar.”
“In this manner, Quixtar has created an army of (distributors) who are effectively trapped in Quixtar’s system, forced to buy and consume outrageously priced products, and recruit new victims as the only means of avoiding financial loss, because leaving Quixtar is rendered impossible by the non-competition and non-solicitation rules.”
An injunction will be filed later today to stop Quixtar from enforcing the non-competition and non-solicitation rules that entrap distributors and prevent them from exiting the pyramid scheme. The preliminary injunction hearing is expected to be held in the next two weeks in Los Angeles.
Archived under Quixtar Support Systems, Amway, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
ADA, Mich., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/ — Quixtar Inc. announced this morning the termination of 15 independent businesses as a result of actions detrimental to the company’s North American operations. The businesses affected were part of the Team training organization or other training organizations using Team’s training materials and named as co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Team’s founders against Quixtar yesterday.Quixtar was working with Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady, founders of the Team training organization, to correct issues related to Team’s teaching of inappropriate business-building tactics, improper positioning of the opportunity, and use of unauthorized support materials. These teachings placed themselves, affiliated Independent Business Owners (IBOs), and Quixtar at serious and immediate risk of legal and regulatory actions and had to be stopped.
Woodward and Brady refused to work with the company to return Team to compliance with Quixtar’s rules, stated their intentions of starting a new company in competition with Quixtar, and filed a lawsuit against the company seeking relief from their non-compete requirements. The lawsuit is filled with outrageous claims and statements and will be defended vigorously by the corporation.
Due to their refusal to correct their business practices, Quixtar terminated the independent businesses of Woodward and Brady as well as those who joined them as plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, filed in a California district court yesterday. A Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Order of Injunction was sought by the company and granted today in a Michigan district court, preventing Woodward and Brady from interfering with the Quixtar Line of Sponsorship (LOS), soliciting IBOs for another business opportunity, disparaging Quixtar and damaging its reputation, and requiring them to return to Quixtar its proprietary and confidential LOS data.
Additional co-plaintiffs whose Quixtar independent businesses were terminated include Billy Florence, Don Wilson, Randy Haugen, Chuck Goetschel, Tim Marks, Kirk Birtles, James Martin, Aron Radosa, David Brandy, Benjamin Dickie, Bruce Gilbank, Michael Martenson, and Chuck Cullen.
Incidentally, the law firm representing the plaintiffs is the same firm involved in several other frivolous lawsuits against Quixtar and IBOs.
Quixtar remains committed to the support of all IBOs and will work with those who agree to abide by the company’s rules and maintain high ethical standards. In fact, the company has announced many improvements to further enhance its business, including more than $200 million in investments in product development, brand building, training, and compensation enhancements.
Commentary from the company is being provided at the Alticor Media Blog [http://media.alticorblogs.com/] and Quixtar is actively reaching out to IBOs who were in the Team training organization and other organizations affected by these terminations to restate our commitment to supporting their independent businesses.
About Quixtar
Quixtar Inc. offers a business opportunity that allows people to have a business of their own based on retailing products and sharing the opportunity with others who will do the same. Quixtar supports Independent Business Owners (IBOs) with a proven compensation plan, portfolios of quality products in health, beauty, and other consumer categories, plus the merchandising materials, training, and education they need to be successful. IBOs also are supported by communities of those who have succeeded in Quixtar businesses before them.
Since 1999, Quixtar IBOs have generated $6.8 billion in sales through Quixtar.com, plus more than $500 million for Quixtar Partner Stores. These sales have earned IBOs more than $2.2 billion in bonuses through the Quixtar(R) Independent Business Owner Compensation Plan plus other incentives. Their efforts have propelled Quixtar to be ranked the #1 online Health & Beauty retailer based on sales, and 22nd among all e-commerce sites, according to Internet Retailer magazine.
A subsidiary of Alticor Inc., Quixtar supports independent businesses in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, and various trust territories and independent island nations in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and Caribbean Sea.
SOURCE Quixtar Inc.
Archived under Quixtar Support Systems, Amway, Quixtar News, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
Consumer-products giant Procter & Gamble Co. is asking a federal judge to ignore allegations that a jury improperly awarded money to the company, which was the target of devil-worshipping rumors.
Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble filed the petition after three trial jurors alleged that their panel concluded the company suffered no damages, but compensated P&G anyway for legal fees by counting the number of company lawyers in the courtroom.
The jury returned a $19.25 million verdict for Procter & Gamble on March 16 against four Amway distributors accused of helping spread the falsehood that P&G’s logo - a bearded, crescent man-in-moon looking over a field of 13 stars - was a symbol of Satanism.
Archived under Amway, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
Following a federal court ruling that Procter & Gamble suffered no damages over rumors surrounding Satanic worship, defendants Amway are now challenging the decision that that they pay nearly $20m in legal costs.
Amway lawyers are trying to overthrow a decision that four of its distributors pay $19.25m to P&G in damages incurred due to the alleged ill-effects rumors of devil worshipping had on its business - despite the fact that sales have risen consistently during the period in question.
The Amway lawyers are alleging improper deliberations by the 11-strong jury in an effort to get the decision overthrown.
In fact, three jurors said in affidavits that the award was given to P&G calculated on the basis of the number of lawyers working on the case and present in the courtroom at the time.
Archived under Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
SALT LAKE CITY - A jury decided Procter & Gamble Co. suffered no damages from devil-worshipping rumors but nonetheless awarded the consumer-products giant $19.25 million by counting the number of company lawyers in the courtroom, three jurors said in affidavits filed in federal court.
Lawyers for the four Amway distributors who were ordered to pay the sum are trying to get the verdict thrown out because of improper deliberations. They asked a federal judge this week to investigate misconduct on the 11-member jury.
The Lanham Act, which governs marketplace competition, allows only judges the discretion to award attorney fees, lawyers said.
Cincinnati-based P&G was unaware of the allegations and filed its own motion this week asking the judge to triple the damages.
Amway’s independent distributors were accused of using a company voice mail system to spread an oft-repeated but false rumor that P&G’s logo - a bearded, crescent man-in-moon looking over a field of 13 stars - was a symbol of Satanism.
In sworn statements, three members of the Utah jury said the full panel unanimously concluded the company had failed to show any lack of sales from the recurring rumors since the 1970s.
But the panel wanted to compensate P&G for “out-of-pocket” legal expenses, the three jurors said.
So they counted the number of lawyers at P&G’s courtroom table and guessed how many hours they worked over a decade of litigation, the jurors said.
The jury disagreed only on how much lawyers typically charge, with estimates ranging up to $600 an hour.
“I had heard no evidence of attorneys fees so I stuck with zero,” one juror, Bryan Tuttle, said in his affidavit. “After soliciting numbers from everybody and averaging them, we knew what a general ballpark figure would be.”
Totals offered by each juror ranged from zero to $50 million and averaged out at $19.25 million, he said. Juror Tanya Platt said two others on the panel “did not want Procter & Gamble to get anything,” raising questions about whether the verdict for P&G was unanimous, as it was supposed to be.
Lawyers for the Amway distributors were stunned to learn of the details, which surfaced when Tuttle alerted Randy Haugen, 53, an Ogden, Utah, businessman and one of the defendants.
“That’s how it all came out,” Haugen’s attorney, Joseph Joyce, said Friday. “Then we spoke to several jurors to confirm what the one juror claimed. One juror felt so strongly she wrote a letter to the court about the deliberations.”
Joyce said he was preparing a motion asking U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to throw out the verdict, which could lead to a new trial.
“It was frustrating for us because we presented a case showing there was no damages,” he said. “The jury apparently felt from one of the jury instructions that they were required to make a finding of damages.
“Once they decided that, they felt they could only award inconsequential damages for attorneys’ fee,” Joyce said.
One of P&G’s trial attorneys, Tracy H. Fowler, said he was aware of the affidavits and planned to ask the judge to ignore them. “I don’t have any evidence beyond what the verdict was,” he said.
Until the March 16 verdict, P&G had suffered legal setbacks in several states while suing people accused of helping spread the Satan rumors.
The rumors cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and internal expenses, and it took aggressive legal action for the rumors to start falling off, P&G spokesman Terry Loftus said Friday.
Amway is a subsidiary of Alticor Inc., a global direct-sales company based in Ada, Mich., with an army of distributors who sell a broad range of products.
Archived under Amway, Amway - Quixtar Lawsuits Comments
