Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
USF Law School - IIP Justice Project
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Protest, Parody and Criticism Sites > Notices > Tortious Interference With Amway's Contractual Relations (NoticeID 137, http://chillingeffects.org/N/137) Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/notice.cgi?NoticeID=137

Tortious Interference With Amway's Contractual Relations

February 09, 2000

 

Sender Information:
Amway Corporation
Sent by: [Private]
[Private/Firm Name]
Chicago, Illinois, 60611-559, US

Recipient Information:
[Private]
Primenet
Phoenix, Arizona, 85034, USA


Sent via: postal mail
Re: Tortious Interference With Amway's Contractual Relationships by http://www.teleport.c

To Whom It May Concern:

We are litigation counsel for Amway Corporation, and we have been retained to help Amway stop false and misleading statements that are used to damage Amway and many operators of independent Amway businesses.

Let me emphasize from the beginning that Amway deeply believes in freedom, including free speech. Amway is excited about the Internet's current role and its future potential to foster greater international communication and understanding. Amway and its 3 million distributors worldwide are very active in protecting and promoting these freedoms. Indeed, Amway's founders list freedom as one of the four foundations of Amway's basic business philosophy. Amway has no wish to stifle honest disagreement. However, while Amway supports free speech, it does not condone speech that is false, misleading and cynically calculated to create severe damage.

It has come to our attention that a web site being posted through Primenet, http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/amway/, currently contains a mirror of the "Amway: The Untold Story" homepage (http://www.teleport.com/~schwartz/) operated by [private].

Mr. [private's] homepage contains numerous false and misleading statements about Amway. These statements have damaged Amway by interfering with Amway's existing and prospective contractual relationships. Moreover, Amway discovered that [private] was a secret paid consultant of its competitor, the Procter & Gamble Company (P&G); and when Amway found out about the secret relationship, P&G hired lawyers to represent [private]and to keep the relationship secret. As a result, Amway filed suit against [private] and P&G in Michigan federal court (W.D. Mich. Case no. 1:98 CV 720) seeking an injunction and compensation for the damage to its business.

The following excerpts provide just a brief sampling of some of the false and misleading statements about Amway that are being posted through the use of Primenet:

Amway Lawsuits
How do I screw thee over? Let me count the ways..." Things
Amway would really rather you didn't know about.

The Canadian Fraud Case
Rich & Jay's excellent adventure, in which they steal millions
from the Canadian govt., plead guilty, and then lie about it.

Cultism in Amway
What does Amway have in common with cult groups? Quite a bit,
it turns out.

Statistics On Success
An interesting analysis of what the chances are of making it
big in Amway. Not surprisingly, the chances suck.

References to Amway Vice President Craig Meurlin as Craig
"Pinocchio" Meurlin and having "terminal foot in mouth
disease" to imply that he is a liar.

References to Amway Vice President Mike Mohr as a "whore".

Meurlin also claims that "the company does not push religious
or political philosophies on distributors." Perhaps he's
thinking of a different "Amway." One of the most common
threads in all the research I've done is the extreme political
and religious bias that permeates every level and aspect of
Amway, to the extent that Amway has been likened to a
combination of a Fundamentalist Christian church and a political
fundraising organization.

For more information on the Hanrahan's Amway experience,
Amway's lack of concern and later attempts to malign them,....

"Help my friend/family member got sucked into this bizarre
Amway cult and has become a tape-spouting zombie. What can
I do??"

You would think Amway's owners would have been satisfied with
their tried-and-true method of sucking money out of the bank
accounts of distributors by selling them starter kits, sales
aids and overpriced products. Apparently not, as this lawsuit
would indicate.

One thing is clear: Amway Corp. has long known of the serious
abuses being perpetuated on its distributors, and has failed
in its moral and ethical responsibility to protect them, or to
sufficiently inform them so they could protect themselves.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Amway's own attorneys
concluded years ago that the tools business is inherently
illegal and unethical.

In the latest slap to the face of its distributors, Amway has
moved to limit their choice of legal remedies and strip them
of their First Amendment rights concerning any disputes they
may have with Amway Corp. or their upline.

"The Amway Corporation stole a lot of money from my family,
when it was most needed. My now eight year old son Jordan
was born near the time of the theft."

"We developed a direct-mail campaign involving MCI, authorized
by the Amway corporation in Official literature, and then
behind our backs - without any of the contractually required
notices, Amway proceeded to lie to our clients, convincing
them to send the MCI sign-ups in to Amway, by-passing our
family, even though the Corporation had no legal standing
whatsoever to do so, in contract law and/or in Criminal Law."

"According to the marketing plan, how much money does Amway
steal when they intentionally and wrongfully interfere with
this plan and objective?"

"Can or will Amway survive running things honestly and fairly?"

"AMWAY HITS PANIC BUTTON, "THREATENS" LOWNDES FOR CONGRESS
WITH LAWSUIT!! AMWAY WANTS TO BE "MANAGER" OF CAMPAIGN!
BIG BLUFF FROM CONFESSED THIEVES (AMWAY FOUNDERS, THAT IS)!!"

This time Amway won't be able to bully, intimidate, buy off,
out-spend or wear down the plaintiffs.

I am not a psychologist or cult "deprogrammer," so I cannot
offer specific advice on how to deal with loved ones who
have gotten involved in Amway or other groups who employ
cult-like methods to recruit and retain members.

It is important that you understand that Amway does not take
issue with the rights of those that wish to have a web site in
which they provide opinion, and solicit the opinions of others,
regarding Amway's products and services. However, Amway does
strongly object to false and misleading statements by such individuals that are calculated to damage innocent people. These statements are wrong and they must stop.

So as to allow us to express our concerns directly to the individual operating http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/amway/, we request that Primenet provide us with the identity of the individual operating the offending web site. We would also request a known address for this individual, if available. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,


[Private]
[Private/Firm Name & Address}

FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: Does it make any difference if I am commenting on a product or company rather than a person?

Answer: Product disparagement law prohibits certain false claims about another's goods or services. While a defamatory statement harms the reputation and character of a person or corporation, a product disparaging statement harms the marketability of the goods being disparaged. Product disparagement is typically harder to prove.


[back to notice text]


Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?

Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.


Topic maintained by USF Law School - IIP Justice Project

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse page printed from: https://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/notice.cgi?NoticeID=137
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts