The recently filed responses by Vemma, BK Boreyko and Tom Alkazin to the FTC’s pyramid scheme case read pretty much like you’d expect:

Deny, deny, deny!

And that’s fair enough.

But there’s one peculiar assertion raised in their defenses that I don’t quite know what to make of…

I’m not going to lead you in with what was said, but rather just provide you verbatim the relevant excerpt from Vemma’s response:

The FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent have failed to mitigate their losses, if any.

Any losses sustained by the FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent were caused by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom the Corporate Defendants had no control or right to control.

Consumers represented by the FTC knowingly and voluntarily, and possibly unreasonably, exposed themselves to any claimed losses with knowledge or appreciation of the risk involved.

Here’s BK Boreyko:

The FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent have failed to mitigate their losses, if any.

Any losses sustained by the FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent were caused by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom Defendant Boreyko had no control or right to control.

Consumers purportedly represented by the FTC knowingly and voluntarily, and possibly unreasonably, exposed themselves to any claimed losses with knowledge or appreciation of the risk involved.

And lastly Alkazin;

Any losses sustained by the FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent were caused by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom Alkazin had no control.

Any consumers represented by the FTC knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of losses.

Perhaps I’m missing some legal nuance here or something, but sounds to me like Vemma, Boreyko and Alkazin just blamed their alleged victims.

Without admitting the FTC’s allegations to be factual, the defense effectively reads that if they were found to be, then consumers of Vemma only have themselves to blame.

Seriously?

An MLM company turning on its customers… that’s a new low guys.

Vemma also raise the question of whether the conjunctive relief requested by the FTC (previously granted by the court on a temporary basis), is even constitutional:

The FTC’s claims for injunctive relief, as sought here, may be unconstitutional.

Boreyko puts it more bluntly, outright declaring the claims (and thus the Judge’s initial decision to grant the relief on a temporary basis?) to be unconstitutional:

The FTC’s claims for injunctive relief, as sought here, were and are unconstitutional.

What the Judge thinks about that remains to be seen. Ditto the “our alleged victims should have known better” defense.

TL;DR (for our #YPR readers):

Vemma to court:
 
Anyone who lost money in Vemma can go screw themselves. And you can shove this unconstitutional shit right up Alex Morton’s ass.

Fuck our victims, fuck the FTC and fuck you too. Vemma out.

Footnote: 
Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for prov

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the main defense strategy used by Vemma, Boreyko, and Alkazin in their FTC pyramid scheme case responses?
The defendants adopted a denial-based defense strategy, fundamentally contesting the FTC's allegations. Notably, they claimed consumers failed to mitigate losses and attributed any damages to uncontrollable third-party actions, attempting to shift responsibility away from corporate defendants while questioning consumer participation voluntariness.

What legal argument did Vemma present regarding consumer losses in the FTC case?
Vemma contended that consumers failed to mitigate potential losses and that any sustained damages resulted from third-party actions beyond corporate defendants' control or authority. This argument attempted to establish that responsibility lay elsewhere, not with the company itself or its leadership.

How did the defendants characterize consumer participation in Vemma's business model?
The defendants suggested consumers participated knowingly

🔗 Related Articles

- FTC files for new Success by Health preliminary injunction
- FTC sues Allied Wallet for assisting scams with stealing $110 million
- Nasgo hitches itself to Ryze unregistered securities opp
- BK Boreyko’s objection to Vemma preliminary injunction
- Brandon Frye cops $600,000 DIS default judgment