ADventures in Law

Home | ADventures in Law

The FTC is no stranger to enforcement against alleged multilevel marketing (MLM) schemes. Historically, those actions have focused on the companies operating the programs themselves. But on April 13, 2026, the FTC added a notable twist by bringing an action against an individual participant—rather than the MLM entity—who allegedly used deceptive earnings claims to recruit new members. The case, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-takes-action-against-high-level-mlm-participant-who-deceived-workers-about-amount-money-they-can" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">FTC v. Wellington</a>, reflects a potential shift in how the Commission approaches consumer protection in the current administration.

core/paragraph

According to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2523145wellingtoncomplaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">FTC’s complaint</a>, Stormy Wellington was a high‑level participant in two MLMs—Total Life Changes (TLC) and Farmasi—and used YouTube and social media to recruit new members by sharing deceptive earnings claims. The FTC alleged that Wellington claimed recruits could earn hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars through the schemes.

Those aspirational claims, the FTC alleged, were starkly disconnected from reality. Income disclosure statements referenced by the Commission showed that in 2023, more than 75% of TLC’s active participants earned no compensation at all, and at most 0.4% earned more than $5,000. Farmasi’s financial disclosures were similarly bleak, with fewer than 1% of active participants earning income in the six‑figure range that Wellington allegedly promised.

The complaint was announced in conjunction with a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2523145wellingtonorder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">stipulated order</a> between the FTC and Wellington, which imposes sweeping restrictions on Wellington’s future conduct. Among other things, the order permanently prohibits her from misrepresenting—or assisting others in misrepresenting—how much money participants can earn through any business venture, including MLMs. It also bars Wellington from making earnings claims unless such claims are not misleading, they can be substantiated, and Wellington can provide evidence upon request.&nbsp; The order does not require Wellington to pay any money.&nbsp; This will likely change in the future for MLM companies and individual participants if the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r111003earningclaimsanprm01132025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">FTC’s proposed Earnings Claims Rule</a> is enacted.&nbsp; This was proposed and put out for public comment in early 2025, but we haven’t heard much formally about it since, but we assume it is working its way through the process and still in play.

core/heading

At first glance, Wellington may look like familiar FTC enforcement: allegations of an MLM, associated false earnings claims, and consumer harm. But the Commission’s public messaging suggests something more. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-takes-action-against-high-level-mlm-participant-who-deceived-workers-about-amount-money-they-can" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In announcing the action</a>, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Christopher Mufarrige emphasized “[t]oday’s actions make clear that the FTC will go after individuals who deceive consumers trying to earn a living.” Such framing underscores a broader enforcement message from the current FTC: enforcement actions that once focused almost exclusively on companies may now reach individual actors, even when those individuals are not running the scheme but are instead operating within it.

As such, this case raises important questions beyond the MLM context. If the FTC is willing to pursue high‑level participants for deceptive earnings claims, might similar theories apply to influencers, brand ambassadors, or even employees who make misleading representations online? Could the next target be an influencer who fails to disclose a material connection, rather than the brand itself? While those questions remain open, Wellington serves as a clear warning to individuals acting in a way that the FTC considers deceptive.

Wellington is not the only recent FTC earnings claim-related enforcement action. For a look at the other earnings claim case filed on April 13, check out Amy, Daniel and Noah's <em><a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/blogs/ftc-brings-second-earnings-claims-case-in-one-day-signals-heightened-scrutiny/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">FTC Brings Second Earnings Claims Case in One Day, Signals Heightened Scrutiny</a></em>.

Posting with Consequences: FTC Brings Earning Claims Action Against Alleged MLM Participant