Legality and alleged deceptive practices
One year after Lyoness was founded, in 2004, the Austrian criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) published an article[29] in the December issue of its organisation’s magazine, in which it warned of the resurfacing of Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes in Austria. Lyoness was explicitly mentioned in this article. The company contested the allegations publicly.[30] In 2005, Austrian Parliament member, Johann Maier (SPÖ) asked the then-incumbent Austrian Minister of Justice (Karin Miklautsch, BZÖ) parliamentary questions about the reports filed against alleged pyramid schemes in Austria in 2004.[31] Lyoness was one of the organisations complaints were filed against.[31]
In 2008, the Austrian Chamber of Labour (‘Arbeiterkammer’) of Steiermark issued a warning against Lyoness, listing its alleged privacy violations, misleading advertising, deceptive information and unrealistic and negligible benefits as red flags for doing business with Lyoness.[32]
In March 2010, the Swiss magazine Beobachter published an article[33] by Pascale Hofmeier entitled "Lyoness: Hands off". In the article, Sara Stalder of the Swiss Consumer Union and Manuel Richard of the Swiss Gambling Commission warn consumers not to do business with Lyoness. In early 2012, Kleine Zeitung published an article[34] suggesting that Lyoness deceived the masses by operating an irrelevant shopping community. L'Hebdo, a Swiss magazine, reproduced a story about how Lyoness members are told that an investment of 3,000 CHF will eventually lead to 25,000 CHF in return, if enough new, down-paying members are recruited.[35]
In February 2012, the Beobachter published an article[36] stating that, based on review of internal Lyoness communication, members are offered ‘bounties’ up to 45,000 CHF to provide ‘relevant information’ on Lyoness’ critics. A critic from Zürich was reported to have been sued for over 1 million CHF for ‘defamation’ after he contacted Lyoness’ partner companies in Switzerland in an attempt to explain the business model of Lyoness to them. The article also reported that the Lyoness business model seems to revolve around recruiting activities instead of discounts and that Lyoness is internationally charged with forgery, fraud and hosting a pyramid scheme.
Der Standard reported in July 2012 that the Austrian Economic and Corruption Prosecutor (‘WKStA’) has been granted jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Lyoness in Austria.[37] The Swiss Handelszeitung mentioned a court case Lyoness lost, which revolved around the question as to whether the company should have issued a financial prospectus before asking investors to finance their advertising campaigns in foreign markets.[38] In September 2012, the same newspaper reported[39] that major, alleged Lyoness partners in Switzerland (Microsoft and Kuoni Travel) were deciding not to continue the partnerships, if there were any to begin with. The Wiener Zeitung reported[40] about a pending lawsuit initiated by the Austrian Consumer Organisation ‘VKI’ in March 2013. The VKI contested 61 clauses of Lyoness’ ‘General Terms and Conditions’, which it called opaque, uncertain, and/or meaningless.[40][41]
The Handelszeitung reported about suspicions that high-level Lyoness members were earlier involved in (other) pyramid schemes, like the ‘Spirit of Independence’.[45] It also mentioned a system called ‘GTS’ (Global Trade System), operated by Erin Trade SA, as a former organisation tied to Hubert Freidl.[45] Like Lyoness, this company has been called a pyramid scheme in the public debate.[45] The Kleine Zeitung reported that various experts were looking at the investment schemes for advertising campaigns organised by Lyoness, and whether a prospectus was required before attracting capital from investors.[41] Lyoness-hired[46] professor Susanne Kalls concluded that no capital market regulations were violated by not issuing a prospectus; attorney Karl Hengstberger came to the opposite conclusion[41] but agreed with Kalls that the Lyoness business package does not constitute an investment.
In September 2009, Lyoness hired criminal law expert Peter Lewisch to assess whether the company's business model violated the Austrian law concerning illegal pyramid schemes.[48] The study, conducted by Lewisch in September 2013, argued that Lyoness is not a pyramid scheme under Austrian legislation. [48] The judges of the regional court in Krems,[49] Austria, however concluded that the business model of Lyoness is so "Ponzi-Scheme-like", that contracts between the company and its business partners are not valid.[50] Lyoness has been declared a pyramid scheme by at least four independent civil courts in Austria. Additionally it was reported that the Austrian Consumers Union has filed suit against Lyoness for providing participants with unclear and deceptive terms and conditions.[40] VKI represented clients who contended they invested money in the advertising campaigns organised by Lyoness, and several option trading packages offered by Lyoness, but were not provided with a prospectus. VKI won their case against Lyoness and the court ruled that the 61 contested clauses are indeed unlawful, making the contracts between Lyoness and its premium members not legally binding under Austrian law.[51]
Lyoness is suspected to be a pyramid scheme in several of the countries it operates in. In its homeland Austria, Lyoness has been declared a pyramid scheme by four independent civil courts.[57] Criminal investigations have also been concluded by the Austrian Economic and Corruption Prosecutor ("WKStA"), who maintains that Lyoness operates an illegal pyramid scheme.[58][59] Lyoness expects to be cleared of all charges.[60] In Australia, Lyoness was under prosecution by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) for operating an illegal pyramid scheme.[61][62] The trial has ended and the judgment was reserved.[63][64]
In October 2015, the Federal Court of Australia found that the loyalty program was not a pyramid scheme as the ACCC had originally claimed.[74] The latest decision in Austria also declared that Lyoness is not classified as fraud or any illegal pyramid scheme by the Austrian Economic and Corruption Prosecutor ("WKStA").[75][76] In April 2016, the Vienna Regional Court stated that Lyoness is not a pyramid scheme. This decision is legally binding and can no longer be subject to appeal.[77][78][79][80][81]
In Australia, The ACCC, after researching Lyoness for a while, instituted proceedings against Lyoness International AG, Lyoness Asia Limited, Lyoness UK Limited and Lyoness Australia Pty Limited (together ‘Lyoness’) for operating a pyramid selling scheme and engaging in referral selling.[61][62] The ACCC alleges that Lyoness has operated the scheme in Australia from mid-2011 and that it continues to operate the scheme. The scheme offers ‘cash back’ rebates to members who shop through a Lyoness portal, use Lyoness vouchers or present their Lyoness card at certain retailers. Whilst cash back offers themselves are not prohibited by the Australian Consumer Law, the ACCC alleges that the Lyoness scheme also offers commissions to members who recruit new members who make a down payment on future shopping. The ACCC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, injunctions, an order requiring the Lyoness website to link to the case report and costs. As Lyoness International AG, Lyoness Asia Limited and Lyoness UK Limited are located overseas, the ACCC will be making arrangements for service on those entities. The case is before Justice Flick of the Federal Court in Sydney.[82] Lyoness have submitted their defence in October 2014, and the next hearing will be in February 2015.[62] Australian victims claim to have lost thousands of dollars each to Lyoness.[83]
In January 2019, Italy’s Competition Authority (AGCM) ruled that the Lyoness cashback formula, which promises a percentage refund of the money spent by consumers shopping at the company’s affiliated retailers, is an unfair and deceptive commercial practice that constitutes a pyramid scheme according to the Italian Consumer Code, and imposed a penalty of €3,200,000 against the company.[84]