美国护肤品公司MONAT因涉嫌采用金字塔骗局模式在澳大利亚招募销售人员而遭到审视。[1]该公司通过社交媒体向澳大利亚女性宣传"改变人生"的收入机会，但调查显示其销售模式存在严重的误导性。[1]三位前内部人士声称，MONAT通过欺骗性的销售策略吸引女性加入，但大多数销售人员的实际收入微乎其微或为零。[1]
根据澳大利亚2024年收入披露，所有市场合作伙伴的平均年收入仅为825澳元，最底层销售人员的中位数年总收入为0元。[1]超过93%的澳大利亚销售人员停留在公司最低等级，其中61%在整个2024年间没有获得任何佣金。[1]相比之下，在美国，MONAT最低等级销售人员中超过90%的人中位数年收入仅为8美元。[1]
法律专家指出了该模式的问题所在。法律教授Jeannie Paterson表示："如果这些推广的利润来自于已招募的其他人，那么它开始看起来像一个金字塔骗局。"[1]律师Glenn Danas补充道："[MONAT]在美国有100,000人为他们销售。他们不仅没有向这些人支付报酬，而且还在从他们身上赚钱。"[1]MONAT首席执行官Geoff Mulham为公司辩护，声称："我们的代码很明确——销售人员必须不在没有提供有关典型收入实际情况的适当背景下做出收入或生活方式声明。"[1]澳大利亚消费者法律专家已呼吁竞争和消费者委员会对该公司进行调查。[1]
MONAT, a hair care company, has come under scrutiny for using misleading income claims to recruit Australian women into its sales network through social media platforms [1]. The company promotes what it describes as "life-changing" earning opportunities, but investigations reveal a multi-level marketing structure that experts say resembles a pyramid scheme [1].
Three former insiders have alleged that MONAT employs deceptive sales tactics that leave most participants earning little to nothing [1]. Data from the United States shows that more than 90 percent of sales representatives at the lowest tier earned a median annual income of just eight dollars [1]. In Australia, the situation is similarly bleak: 61 percent of market partners received no commissions throughout 2024, and the median annual income for those at the lowest level was zero dollars, with an overall average annual income across all Australian market partners of 825 Australian dollars [1]. Over 93 percent of Australian salespeople remain stuck at the company's lowest grade [1].
Legal experts have raised red flags about the company's structure. Law professor Jeannie Paterson stated: "If these promoted profits come from other people you have recruited, then it starts to look like a pyramid scheme" [1]. Lawyer Glenn Danas noted that while MONAT has 100,000 sellers in the United States, "they not only don't pay these people, they make money off them" [1]. MONAT's CEO Geoff Mulham has defended the company's practices, saying: "Our code is very clear—representatives must not make income or lifestyle statements without providing appropriate context regarding what typical earnings actually are" [1]. The company has previously faced regulatory scrutiny in the United States over unsubstantiated income and lifestyle claims [1]. Consumer law experts in Australia are calling on the competition and consumer regulator to investigate the company's operations [1].