MLM Survivors Homepage. Headlines and breaking news about Amway and other Multi-Level Marketing businesses


	D. P&G's Motivation in Joining with Schwartz, Lowndes and Their Confederates 57. By joining forces with Schwartz, Lowndes and their Internet confederates, P&G knew or should have known that it would spawn new and amplify existing false and misleading anti-Amway sites, to the detriment of Amway This was the effect of P&G's covert sponsorship of Schwartz and, from all objective indications, this was also P&G's intent. 58. P&G demonstrated its intent to interfere with Amway's contracts and prospective and actual business relationships by its conduct with Schwartz and in other, independent actions. The malicious nature of the P&G/Schwartz web site is apparent from merely reading it. With full knowledge of the vicious nature of the web site, P&G proceeded to give Schwartz additional "logs for his fire". For example, P&G encouraged Schwartz to post on his website the text of a complaint replete with false and misleading statements that P&G filed against Amway in Houston, Texas. P&G thereby used Schwartz to publicize its false claims that Amway operates as an illegal pyramid scheme and that Amway was somehow responsible for a persistent rumor connecting P&G with Satanism. Schwartz did P&G's bidding, posting the complaint before it had even been served on Amway. P&G then attempted to cover its tracks when Amway tried to investigate P&G's complicity with Schwartz. 59. P&G further demonstrated its intent to harm Amway's business relationships by using the legal system improperly to harass and harm Amway, and to make Amway the scapegoat for persistent rumors linking P&G to Satanism. P&G then publicized its false allegations with false and misleading press releases in both Utah and Texas, thus further revealing its intention to interfere with Amway's business.

D. P&G's Motivation in Joining with Schwartz, Lowndes and Their Confederates

57. By joining forces with Schwartz, Lowndes and their Internet confederates, P&G knew or should have known that it would spawn new and amplify existing false and misleading anti-Amway sites, to the detriment of Amway This was the effect of P&G's covert sponsorship of Schwartz and, from all objective indications, this was also P&G's intent.

58. P&G demonstrated its intent to interfere with Amway's contracts and prospective and actual business relationships by its conduct with Schwartz and in other, independent actions. The malicious nature of the P&G/Schwartz web site is apparent from merely reading it. With full knowledge of the vicious nature of the web site, P&G proceeded to give Schwartz additional "logs for his fire". For example, P&G encouraged Schwartz to post on his website the text of a complaint replete with false and misleading statements that P&G filed against Amway in Houston, Texas. P&G thereby used Schwartz to publicize its false claims that Amway operates as an illegal pyramid scheme and that Amway was somehow responsible for a persistent rumor connecting P&G with Satanism. Schwartz did P&G's bidding, posting the complaint before it had even been served on Amway. P&G then attempted to cover its tracks when Amway tried to investigate P&G's complicity with Schwartz.

59. P&G further demonstrated its intent to harm Amway's business relationships by using the legal system improperly to harass and harm Amway, and to make Amway the scapegoat for persistent rumors linking P&G to Satanism. P&G then publicized its false allegations with false and misleading press releases in both Utah and Texas, thus further revealing its intention to interfere with Amway's business.

60. Shortly after P&G filed its Utah litigation against Amway, the Utah court dismissed several of P&G's claims and fined P&G for destroying relevant evidence. On March 26, 1999, the Utah court dismissed the remaining claims that P&G brought against Amway. Finally, in the liitigation that P&G filed against Amway in Texas, the Texas court recently dismissed 6 of 13 counts from P&G's case for failing to state a bona fide legal claim.

61. In conspiring with Schwartz and Lowndes, P&G intended to interfere with Amway's contracts and prospective and actual business relationships with independent distributors of Amway products and consumers of Amway products. On information and belief, a number of individuals either quit their Amway distributorships or declined to form a distributorship in the first instance as a result of P&G's tactics.

COUNT I
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND WITH ACTUAL
AND PROSPECTIVE BUSINEESS RELATIONS

62. Amway incorporates as if fully restated herein all of the allegations in Paragraphs 1-61.

63. Amway has had existing contracts with certain independent distributors of Amway products. In addition, Amway has had existing, and a reasonable probability of future, economic relationships with prospective distributors and with consumers of Amway products.

64. There is a reasonable probability that certain customers of Amway products will continue to purchase Amway products in the future, or would have done so in the past, but for Defendants' interference.

65. There is a reasonable probability that certain independent distributors of Amway products will continue to be independent Amway distributors in the future, and that certain individuals will become Amway distributors in the foreseeable future, or would have done so in the past, but for Defendants' interference.

66. Defendants were aware of these contracts and business relationships and of Amway's expectancy of continued future economic benefit as a result of these business relationships.

67. Defendants, individually and in concert and in conspiracy with one another, disseminated and aided and abetted dissemination of malicious attacks against Amway on the World Wide Web with the intent and effect of interfering with Amway's contracts and prospective and actual business relationships with independent distributors of Amway products, potential distributors, and consumers of Amway products. Certain individuals either quit their distributorships or declined to form a distributorship in the first instance as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct.

68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Amway has lost sales and has been otherwise damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

69. Defendants' conduct was undertaken in bad faith, was malicious and manifested a wanton disregard of, and/or reckless indifference towards, the rights of Amway, including Amway's right to its actual and potential business relationships, thereby entitling Amway to punitive and exemplary damages.

Home Send E-Mail Read E-Mail Links Read Articles Visit Book Corner

This page updated Jul-26-99