Burnlounge Decision!

Burnlounge was held to be an illegal pyramid scheme by the U.S. District Court in California. (See below for the full decision or click here).

There’s an incredible amount of information to learn from this case. The judge, after sitting on this case for over two years, illustrated a number of factors he used while analyzing the Burnlounge model. In yet another case, the court held that the participants inside the program (distributors) cannot be counted as “customers” for purposes of pyramid scheme analysis. It’s imperative for companies to have solid customer numbers from people outside the program. The judge spent a lot of time in this opinion discussing the marketability of the Burnlounge offering. At the end of the day, the true test for marketability is customer usage. In Burnlounge’s case, they only had 3% of their revenue come from customer sales. Burnlounge tried arguing that their sales force should count as customers and that their service was legitimate and well worth the price. The judge was not persuaded by either arguments. In the video below, I do my best to discuss the highlights. If you like this story, “Like” it or +1 it! Enjoy.

FTC v. Burnlounge – Final Decision(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.steadson David Steadson

    Haven’t watched your vid yet Kevin but did read the decision. Not sure where you get the part about the court saying participants aren’t customers? In my quick read he seemed to be saying the distributor “packages” had little or no retail value and motivation to purchase was the issue, not who was purchasing per se.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kevinthompson Kevin Thompson

      Page 16, section (k) for one reference.  He says “But the distribution of product packages among the Moguls and non-Moguls indicates that most Moguls would not have purchased the package that they did absent the business opportunity.”  Lack of customer sales was indicative of a pyramid.  This logic was referenced multiple times.  He discusses the 3% sales number, etc.  I’m glad you read the Order.  What else are your thoughts?    

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.steadson David Steadson

        Ok, well that doesn’t say participants can’t be considered customers. rather that participants as customers are not a good indication of legitimate demand, which I entirely agre with. In theory if you can show true market value as well then you might be able to claim legitimate demand, but burnlounge failed on that count quite dismally. Indeed the way the decision is written implies the judge was pretty unimpressed with their defence.

        Regarding the decision itself, it confirms what I always thought about burnlounge, so no surprise there. It was interesting that the third individual defendent, DeBoer, was judged to have only limited liability.

        • http://twitter.com/TexTex TexTex

          The point is the best method of demonstrating legitimate demand is by measuring legitimate demand, which can best be measured by non-participant customers. Anything less is at minimum highly suspect.

      • http://twitter.com/TexTex TexTex
  • http://twitter.com/TexTex TexTex

    See below.

  • Pingback: MLM Editorial: What Are Income Claims And What Does The FTC Say? | MLM Help Desk

  • Pingback: Distributor Spotlight – Shannon Denniston