 |
|
| Spanos vs. Quixtar & Goetschel | |
States with private |
In the most recent lawsuit against Quixtar and a line of sponsorship, a California IBO is suing using "the private attorney general" action pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500. With this law a private citizen is allowed to act as the State Attorney General. The complaint is for a permanent injunction against Quixtar, Chuck Goetschel and his motivational tools business PDP, Inc. |
Quixtar tried to force mandatory arbitration via the BSMAA but was unsuccessful and has appealed the decision. One judge in the Stewart/Hart suit in Missouri state court has already ruled the BSMAA as "uniformly unfair and unconscionable" I assume since the California Attorney General was never a Quixtar IBO, they aren't bound by the arbitration agreement. The outcome of this case could have a great impact on the Quixtar business, especially if Quixtar is bared from doing business in California. The complaint requests a permanent injunction against Quixtar and Goetschel (Team 5000) in the state of California for: 1) Unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices under business
and professions code 17200 The complaint Also mentioned is the wealth deception made by diamonds and that the majority of Mr. Goetschel's income comes from tools rather than the promoted Quixtar business. The complaint mentions the emphasis on recruiting and "getting people in the seats" for seminars. The complaint alleges that the signed contract IBOs have with the refund rights accorded by the BSMAA, and Geotschel' opposite position maintaining a "no refunds" policy, is a fraudulent representation to the public. The complaint also cites numerous misrepresentations of income and uses Team 5000 materials as evidence. Also mentioned is Team 5000's emphasis that success in Quixtar is only available via the use of their "proven" system. The complaint mentions the Hal and Harriet Lyons fiasco and how the Lyons disappeared from the scene without a trace. The Goetschel's were the Lyons upline. The complaint alleges that the deceptive scheme was made to intentionally evade mandatory registration requirements via an altered registration pack. The altered registration forms consisted of grossly altered and barely legible and/or totally illegible versions of Quixtar forms, as well as removal of copies that were for the IBO to keep for their own records. Since all of these items are intended to deceive the public, the right to file as a private attorney general action. All in all the complaint is a compilation of all the other abuses identified over the decades in Amway. The difference here is that is no private settlement like most of the other Amay/Quixtar lawsuits. If Mr. Spanos is successful and gains in injunction in California, it will have a great impact on the business. Maybe Quixtar will finally clean house in the lines of sponsorship before the "American Way" has to be renamed "the Asian Way". It seems the only places that readily accept Amway's "exploitive capitalism" are third world countries that do not have the 44 years of experience with Amway that the United States does. |
|
