Clothing company LuLaRoe insists that they are not a “pyramid scheme” despite recent class-action lawsuits claiming that the company lured retailers into buying thousands of dollars’ worth of unsellable merchandise.
LuLaRoe uses “multi-level marketing” to sell their products, meaning that the company sells merchandise to “consultants” – most of them women working from home who resell the merchandise to their neighbors and friends at home parties. The idea is that moms who want to stay home with the kids will have an independent way of making an income.
Last month, two class-action lawsuits were filed against LuLaRoe, claiming that the company makes the vast majority of its profits off of women who sign up to be consultants, rather than from sales to the end-users.
Plaintiffs say they have lost thousands of dollars because LuLaRoe aggressively pushes consultants to buy up to $20,000 worth of merchandise that can’t sell, either because the markets is flooded, or because the products are poor – one suit claiming that the fabrics tear like “wet toilet paper.”
“The vast majority of consultants sitting at the bottom of defendants’ pyramid were and remain destined for failure and unable to turn any profit,” says one suit. “Some resulted in financial ruin due to pressure to max out credit cards and to take loans to purchase inventory.”
The suits further claim that when women have tried to get out of the business, LuLaRoe has refused to take back and refund unsold merchandise, while also telling former consultants that they can no longer sell the products. Thus, consultants are stuck with thousands of dollars of merchandise that they can’t sell sitting in their garages and basements.
Deanne and Mark Stidham, founders of LuLaRose, tell CBS that it isn’t a pyramid scheme and that anyone who thinks so has an “uneducated opinion.”
Says Deanne Stidham, “You get the product, you put it before people, and you sell it, and you have money, and that’s the simplicity of this business and that’s as easy as it can be.”
The Stidhams implied that jealous retailers were encouraging plaintiffs to sue because the LuLaRoe model has been “disruptive in the marketplace.”