Mark this day in History when the granddaddy (Quixtar Inc., the successor-in-interest to Amway Corporation), of the MLM Industry gets smacked down on appeal for unconscionable contract terms.

Kudo’s go out to JEFF POKORNY; LARRY BLENN; and KENNETH BUSIERE, Quixstar IBO’s who had the fortitude to hang on to their belief’s and claim since 2007 and through appeal which finally ocurred on April 20, 2010

It’s a Great Day for all MLM Distributors who have been burned by the unconscionable contracts that permeate their careers in MLM/Network Marketing and the unfair requirement to arbitrate vs. litigate when complaints come up.  Some of the substantial decisions of this case follow:

Page 13:  “the more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionabilityis required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.”

AND

An agreement or any portion thereof is procedurally unconscionable if “the weaker party is presented the clause and told to ‘take it or leave it’ without the opportunity for meaningful negotiation.”

Page 14: This oppressive behavior is the quintessential characteristic of a procedurally unconscionable agreement. See Szetela, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 867.

In addition, those rules were subject to unilateral amendment by Quixtar at any time. Thus, Plaintiffs were not even given a fair opportunity to review the full nature and extent of the non-binding conciliation and binding arbitration processes to which they would be bound before they signed the registration agreements or the BSMAA. These problems multiply the degree of procedural unconscionability of the ADR agreements. See Harper, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 422-23

Page 15:  The fact that Plaintiffs signed or renewed registration forms containing the Agreement to Arbitrate does not assist Defendants.  The forms incorporated by reference the Rules of Conduct over which Plaintiffs had no say. Plaintiffs signatures thus served to make each a party to a contract they now challenge as unconscionable.

Page 17: The court identified three aspects of this ADR agreement that it concluded rendered it substantively unconscionable.  Id. at 307-08. First, the agreement lacked mutuality because only the plaintiff was required to resolve his claims through the ADR process, and no similar requirement bound the defendant. Id. at 307. Second, by “requiring [the] plaintiff to submit to an employer-controlled dispute resolution mechanism
(i.e., one without a neutral mediator),” the defendant “would receive a ‘free peek’ at [the] plaintiff’s case, thereby obtaining an advantage if and when [the] plaintiff were to later demand arbitration.” Id. And third, the ADR agreement placed stringent time limitations on the plaintiff’s assertion of any claims against the defendant without placing any similar limitations on the defendant’s right to bring claims against the plaintiff. Id. at 307-08.

All of the obligations and procedures relating to the non-binding conciliation process refer directly to IBOs, not Quixtar.  Conspicuously absent from this purpose is the creation of any duties or responsibilities for Quixtar.

Page 18:  Quixtar reserved to itself “the sole right to adopt, amend, modify, supplement, or rescind any or all of these Rules, as necessary with respect to cases of Rules enforcement.”

It was for this very reason that the Fifth Circuit held that a similar ADR scheme in a prior version of the Rules of Conduct promulgated by Quixtar’s predecessor Amway was illusory and unenforceable under Texas law. See Morrison v. Amway Corp., 517 F.3d 248, 254-57 (5th Cir. 2008).

Page 19:  As the district court concluded, the Rules of Conduct are “self-perpetuating”and therefore “inherently biased” against an IBO that seeks to challenge them.

Page 20:  This lopsided advantage enjoyed by Quixtar is precisely the type of one-sidedness that the doctrine of substantive unconscionability is designed to protect against. See Harper, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 423.

Page 21:  Thus, as the district court pointed out, although Quixtar may be forced into binding arbitration when an IBO initiates the dispute, Quixtar is free to initiate and litigate any claim it has against an IBO in court without ever submitting the claim to binding arbitration.

Page 22: Soltani recognized that lack of mutuality is relevant to assessing substantive unconscionability, 258 F.3d at 1043, and relied on West v. Henderson, 278 Cal. Rptr. 570, 575-76 (Ct. App. 1991), which held that lack of mutuality makes contractual provisions “suspect” and upheld a nonmutual provision only after finding that it was supported by a specific justification. Particularly in situations like this one, where no special circumstance necessitates a non-mutual provision, a unilateral reduction in the statute of limitations is an indicator of substantive unconscionability. See Nyulassy, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 307-08.

Another indicator of substantive unconscionability is the confidentiality requirement in the Rules of Conduct. This prohibits IBOs engaged in the arbitration process from disclosing “to any other person not directly involved in the conciliation or arbitration process (a) the substance of, or basis for, the claim; (b) the content of any testimony or other evidence presented at an arbitration hearing or obtained through discovery; or (c) the terms [or] amount of any arbitration award.”  Because the confidentiality clause swept so broadly, we concluded that it was substantively unconscionable. Id. at 1078, 1084.

Page 24: Thus, while handicapping the Plaintiffs’ ability to investigate their claims and engage in meaningful discovery, the confidentiality provision does nothing to prevent Quixtar from using its continuous involvement in the Quixtar ADR process to accumulate “a wealth of knowledge” on how to arbitrate future claims brought by IBOs.

Also contributing to the total substantive unconscionability of the binding arbitration provisions is the arbitration selection procedure mandated by the Rules of Conduct.

Page 26:  The use of Quixtar-trained arbitrators is to Quixtar’s advantage, and the IBOs who receive the letters are not informed of that pertinent fact.

Page 27:  As the district court succinctly stated, an IBO “should not have to pay extra” to avoid the unfairness created by Quixtar’s orientation program. The district court therefore properly determined that the arbitration selection process is substantively unconscionable.

Finally, the Rules of Conduct include a fee-shifting clause that unfairly exposes IBOs to a greater financial risk in arbitrating claims than they would face if they were to litigate those same claims in federal court.

Page 28:  Here we have an arbitration agreement that actually includes a fee-shifting provision and that places those costs on the IBO if it loses in a process already stacked against it.

Thank you, Judge Schroeder for your CONCLUSION:   For the foregoing reasons, we hold the district court properly determined that the Quixtar ADR agreements are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law.  We deny Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice as moot. We affirm the order of the district court denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration.  AFFIRMED.

Now there is precendence for ALL MLM/Network Marketers to hold out for their Companies and stop the substantively oppressive, lacking mutuality, inherently biased, one-sidedness type Contracts that usually force GOOD people to leave our opportunities or never consider it at all.

Let me know What you Think about this occurring, post your comments, I’d love to hear from you.

This past week I read the amazing story of LuAn Mitchell, one of Canada’s great entrepreneurs. Her story will never be a movie because no one would believe it!

Pregnant at 16, later a beauty queen who married a man even after they found out he had a life-threatening disease, single mom, and CEO of (believe it or not) one of Canada’s largest meat packing companies, she has an astonishing story of perseverance and accomplishment.

How did she do it? And, what can we learn from people like LuAn who overcome the odds and get results most of us only dream of?

I think there are at least four basic principles that MLM distributors can keep in mind.

The basics are just that, the BASICS! Too often we get caught in the busy-ness of life and we either forget to monitor the first principles of success, or we get over-confident and think we can re-invent the basics, but there are no “new fundamentals.” The fundamentals have not changed. We either take care of business, or we struggle.  (Or we count on “luck” to save the day…never a smart plan.)

So, what are the basics? Read the rest of this entry »

Getting lots of inquiries from potential customers is great. It means that you are well known in your chosen market. But all this popularity won’t do you much good if it doesn’t generate sales. 

The most common complaint I hear from MLM Distributors is that their MLM prospects just won’t part with their money. Potential customers are accused of being slow to make decisions, reluctant to change their thinking or just behind the times. 

While this can be frustrating, it is a big mistake to blame the prospective MLM customer for not taking action. Look closer to home for the real reason why your conversion rate is disappointingly low. The reality is that you actually have a lot of control over this issue. But you have to be proactive.

The general rule is :  Read the rest of this entry »

If I mention the words “photocopier” or “overnight delivery” or “personal computer,” chances are that a specific brand name immediately pops into your mind. When you go to the grocery store, don’t you gravitate toward certain products over and over because you know them by name and think to look for them each time you walk down the aisles?

In each of these situations, you’re activating “mental shelf space” — the automatic association of a product or service with the person or organization delivering it. That is the kind of powerful mental connection that each of us needs to develop for our MLM business. If you’re an expert Networker, not only will the people you know think about you when the MLM product or MLM service you’re associated with comes up in conversation, but your name rolls off their tongues as quickly as the recognized brand of overnight delivery service.

Please understand, we’re not talking about a right or wrong way to network. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; however, different Networking styles produce different results. Is your Networking style appropriate for you, your Networking partners, your markets, your MLM products and services, and your own goals and objectives? Will it bring you to the results you’re after? Only you can answer these questions.

Take a moment to think — when your network of acquaintances thinks about you, what do you guess comes to mind? Analyst, insurance person, that guy from the office, international marketer? You know the saying, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”? Ask yourself who knows you. Do they know what you can do for them? When they think of the MLM product or service you provide, do they automatically pull your name off the shelf? There’s no reason they shouldn’t; you need to decide what perception you want to create of yourself.

I tell my prospective MLM distributors that passively thinking about something does nothing for their wallets. Remember when you were growing up, and people told you to “think before you speak”? Sage advice to be sure, but focused, targeted action must follow the thoughts!

You and I will work very hard over our lifetimes. Hard work is not the challenge. Working smart is. Short of scientific inquiry and space exploration, there’s not a lot of “new” information; this means it’s in your power today, through your choice of a Networking approach, to create mental shelf space for yourself in enough people’s minds to build a booming MLM business.

What style are you employing and what methods are you using to become known to your MLM target market? Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve always admired Tom Peters, the author or co-author of ten international bestsellers, including “In Search of Excellence”, which he wrote with Bob Waterman in 1982.  He is a self-described “prince of disorder, champion of bold failures, maestro of zest, and corporate cheerleader.  But boy doesn’t he rile them up 

Before John Maxwell came out with his Leadership books, Tom Peters had already written “A Passion for Excellence, The Leadership Difference” and that made a major impact on me.  (That was in 1985).

Then he had the “Pursuit of Wow”…”Circle of Innovation”…and the one I want to especially mention today…”The Brand YOU”. Read the rest of this entry »

We talked about internet stats, so let’s see how you can identify your market for your MLM business.

One of the things that I think is very different between the online and offline markets is that it’s so much easier to find a market within any variety of niches.   The research is readily available to identify the number of people within a niche, how big it is and where to communicate with that market.  It’s so easy online, whereas it’s more difficult and time-consuming offline.

 And new market niches constantly pop up.  These niches are not big enough to go offline; they’d cost too much to get to. But online, you have people that are congregating in one spot from all over the world at one web site, or one e-mail list, or one forum. Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t know about you, but when I was told about MLM, they stated that it was a home-based business.  In the first 5 years, I saw so little of home, I thought I was doing it all wrong.

I wanted the leverage and freedom that MLM provides, but I also wanted to be able to stay home and do it.

The internet wasn’t what it is today, back in the early 90’s, so you can kind of say, I was a pioneer of the early internet.  The stats when I got on were about 60M who spoke English and there weren’t even 1 Million websites.  Everyone had dial-up.  Banner ads were just getting popular, people talked on IRC, and email lists were just starting.  Read the rest of this entry »