There’s a lot of talk in the MLM industry now surrounding the FTC’s temporary shutdown of Vemma.

A lot of folks seem to think this was some sort of knee-jerk reaction, the setting of an example if you will, initiated through blind vengeance with a complete lack of evidence.

That couldn’t be further from the truth, and today we take a look at what went down on the 21st of August.

For those unfamiliar with the finer details of the
FTC’s illegal pyramid scheme complaint against Vemma
, the 21st of August marked the date the regulator was granted an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO).

This TRO put a halt to Vemma’s business activities and placed a Receiver in charge of the company.

Despite what you might have read elsewhere, getting a TRO is no simple task.

To get a TRO against Vemma, the FTC had to demonstrate to the court their “ultimate likelihood of success” in obtaining a preliminary injunction, and that said injunction is “in the public interest”.

This is based on evidence, the same that will be presented to the court next Thursday when the matter of the preliminary injunction comes up.

In the meantime, the court granted the FTC a TRO on the basis

The FTC has shown a likelihood that it will ultimately succeed.

Again, I’ll re-enforce that 
this was not some willy-nilly decision by the court.

The aim wasn’t to stick it to people earning money in Vemma, trample on entrepreneurial rights, keep you in an invisible cage, attack the MLM industry or any of the other garbage I’ve seen floating around.

In the court’s own words:

Based upon the evidence presented
, there is good cause to believe that Defendants have violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by:

a) Operating an illegal pyramid scheme;

b) Falsely representing that members of the Vemma program (“Affiliates”) are likely to earn substantial income;

c) Representing that individuals have earned substantial income from participation in the Vemma program and that consumers who become Vemma Affiliates have the ability to earn substantial income, while failing to disclose, or disclose adequately, that Vemma’s structure ensures that most consumers who become Vemma Affiliates will not earn substantial income; and

d) Providing the means and instrumentalities for the commission of deceptive acts and practices by furnishing Vemma Affiliates with promotional materials to be used in recruiting new participants that contain false and misleading representations.

The decision by the court was 
based on evidence, 
and I cannot emphasize that enough.

The FTC has hard evidence against Vemma, which has been presented in court and convinced a Judge that immediately stopping Vemma’s business activities, till next Thursday at least, was in the public’s best interest.

Based upon the evidence presented
, there is good cause to believe that:

i) Defendants are violating and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act;

ii) Consumers nationwide have suffere

🤖 Quick Answer

What legal action did the FTC take against Vemma on August 21st?
The FTC obtained an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO) against Vemma, halting the company's business activities and placing a court-appointed Receiver in charge of operations. This action was based on the regulator's complaint alleging illegal pyramid scheme practices.

Why is obtaining a temporary restraining order considered significant?
A temporary restraining order requires substantial legal justification and evidence before a court grants it. Securing a TRO is an arduous process, indicating the FTC presented compelling evidence of wrongdoing rather than acting arbitrarily or vindictively against Vemma.

🔗 Related Articles

- Iyovia fails to meet financial obligations, owners MIA
- Iyovia collapses (again), business operations suspended
- Iyovia collapses, MLM operations terminated
- WorldVentures lose Ministry of Culture appeal, still a pyramid scheme
- Crowd1 securities fraud warning issued in the Philippines