The FTC has filed a lawsuit against the MLM company Neora (formerly Nerium), and owner Jeff Olson.

According to the FTC, Neora has operated as a pyramid scheme since inception as Nerium International in 2011.

Up until earlier this year Neora went by Nerium International. BehindMLM
reviewed Nerium International
back in 2014.

In our review we noted several autoship recruitment concerns;

Speaking of autoship, it conveniently brings us to the biggest red-flag I see in Nerium’s compensation plan.

For reasons not entirely clear to me, Nerium require affiliates to purchase a monthly 80 PV minimum autoship order or generate 200 PV in retail customer orders to qualify for commissions.

Shouldn’t this be the other way around?

The Fast Start Bonus for example, which is basically “sign up for autoship and recruit 3 affiliates who do the same”, perfectly illustrates potential problems.

We revisited Neora as Nerium and published an
updated review
in February.

To our dismay, in the five years since our original Nerium review, Neora failed to address its focus on affiliate autoship recruitment.

Following their own investigation, the FTC concluded;

Since its inception, Nerium has operated as an illegal pyramid scheme.

Unlike a legitimate multi-level marketing business, Nerium’s compensation scheme emphasizes recruiting new BPs over the sale of products to consumers outside of the organization.

Nerium’s business model makes it unlikely that BPs can earn money by selling product to outside consumers in response to genuine demand.

“Outside consumers” being retail customers, which are typically ignored in an affiliate autoship recruitment model.

With respect to retail sales, analysis of commission amounts reveals why Neora distributors (referred to as BPs) would opt for autoship recruitment over retail.

BPs who do not sign up for auto-delivery receive no discount on their product purchases, meaning that sales from their personal inventory would not be profitable even at full retail price.

Even for BPs who sign up for auto-delivery, the profit margin is typically slim or non-existent.

All in all, Neora had admitted to the FTC that

less than 1%
of all rewards paid by the company consist of commissions paid on the sale of products to Retail Customers.

As is true in all pyramid schemes, the majority of Neora distributors made no money.

Here are the facts and figures quoted by the FTC pertaining to Neora distributor losses;

According to Nerium’s most recent reporting, less than 5% of BPs in the United States earn more from Nerium than they pay in fees and product purchases.

At least 92% of Nerium’s BPs have quit, with half leaving the company within six months or less.

The challenging reality of retailing and recruiting has meant that
very few Nerium participants get above even the first rung on the organizational ladder.

Although there are now eighteen levels in the Nerium business opportunity hierarchy, Nerium reports that
more than 85% o

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the FTC lawsuit against Neora about?
The FTC filed a lawsuit against MLM company Neora (formerly Nerium) and owner Jeff Olson, alleging the company operated as a pyramid scheme since its inception in 2011. The complaint highlights problematic compensation structures, including mandatory autoship requirements and recruitment-focused bonuses.

What autoship requirements did Nerium impose on affiliates?
Nerium required affiliates to purchase a monthly 80 PV minimum autoship order or generate 200 PV in retail customer orders to qualify for commissions. This structure prioritized personal purchasing over actual retail sales to external customers.

When did Nerium change its company name?
Nerium International rebranded to Neora earlier in the year preceding the FTC lawsuit. The company had operated under the Nerium name since its establishment in 2011.

🔗 Related Articles

- “Paparazzi a pyramid scheme”, leaks case counterclaim alleges
- Pruvit sues Vital Health for patent infringement
- FTC want Vemma’s “irrelevant evidence” excluded (Koscot)
- Legal opinion claims USI-Tech’s unregistered securities legal in the US?
- Premier Financial Alliance denied arbitration and venue change