This introduction was made by the Direct Selling Self Regulatory Council, a division of BBB National Programs. The DSSRC considers both claims made by MLMs about product performance and claims about potential revenue from participating in direct sales schemes.
In the same process pending review by the National Advertising Department, if the parties to the case do not respond or make the recommended changes, the case will be referred to the FTC and other relevant authorities for possible enforcement action.
The DSSRC statement shows that ViSalis, which has existed as an MLM for more than a decade, claimed to treat many ailments with its products. These include claims to treat or prevent diabetes, fibromyalgia, cancer, arthritis, and migraines, according to a DSSRC statement.
outlandish earnings claims
The research also included concerns about revenue claims that convey the message that participants in ViSalus business opportunities can expect to earn substantial or career-level income.
For example, a video played on the ViSalus homepage contains the following claim by an unidentified individual: “There is an opportunity here to make a lot of money and you can make a big lifestyle change.”The same promoter was shown holding a large format check for $1 million.
Another anonymous promoter said: “We’re talking just three to five hours a week that can dramatically change your lifestyle.”na
Another claim made by the video’s narrator is: “Challenge promoters can earn hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars a month.”na
The persons appearing in the video have not been identified, so it is unclear whether they are actually ViSalis distributors or paid actors.
Looming Robocall Fines
ViSalis was also involved in a consumer protection lawsuit brought in Oregon that has dragged on for several years. A jury found that the company made 1.8 million illegal robocalls of her. The original ruling in the lawsuit had him seeking nearly $1 billion in damages based on $500 fines for each call. An appeals court judge then upheld the fine, saying it was based on a simple calculation.
In October, a federal appeals court ruled that while a fine of $500 per call was reasonable, the total fine was not. remand the case to a lower courtRegarding rulings on modified penalties. Company lawyers were demanding he be fined $1 for each illegal call.