Idaho Attorney General's Response
Glenn Greenwald based his article on an article from Mother Jones that was later taken down, which stated that Melaleuca had had several run-ins with the State of Idaho. The Mother Jones article also claimed that Melaleuca had been cited by the State of Idaho for making exaggerated claims on it products, and exaggerated claims about the earnings potential of its independent business opportunity. None of that was true. That has never happened. This is only one example of the many false claims being made by Melaleuca's detractors. To clear up the issue, Melaleuca contacted the Idaho State Attorney General's office, and asked whether the Mother Jones article had given an accurate description of the relationship between the state of Idaho's Attorney General's office and Melaleuca.
The Attorney General's office can not, and does not, endorse any company, but the following letter makes it inherently clear that the many false statements made by various blog sites are absolutely false. Mother Jones took down their original article, but unfortunately Greenwald quoted them before they took it down, and then bashed us for asking Mother Jones to take it down. Then MSNBC's Rachel Maddow simply quoted Glenn Greenwald. The following letters document that the original premise for the unwarranted slams against Melaleuca is simply false.
The letters from Melaleuca and the Attorney General's response are below:
The Attorney General's office can not, and does not, endorse any company, but the following letter makes it inherently clear that the many false statements made by various blog sites are absolutely false. Mother Jones took down their original article, but unfortunately Greenwald quoted them before they took it down, and then bashed us for asking Mother Jones to take it down. Then MSNBC's Rachel Maddow simply quoted Glenn Greenwald. The following letters document that the original premise for the unwarranted slams against Melaleuca is simply false.
The letters from Melaleuca and the Attorney General's response are below:
Melaleuca's Letter to the Idaho Attorney General
February 7, 2012
Dear Mr. Delange,
A publication by the name of "Mother Jones" published an article on Melaleuca yesterday morning that addresses Melaleuca's reputation in the marketplace and specifically addresses Melaleuca's relationship with State of Idaho. We do not feel that the article accurately defines our reputation in the marketplace, nor do we believe that it accurately represents our relationship with the state Attorney General’s Office or the State of Idaho. Melaleuca values its good relationship with the State of Idaho and specifically with Idaho Attorney General’s Office. In the event that we were ever to fail to operate ethically or legally, we would expect the Attorney General's Office to hold us accountable. But, to the degree that we have not been accused of wrongdoing, we believe that we should be exonerated in any such irresponsible accusations from the press. We would like to respond to "Mother Jones" and hopefully get the article corrected.
The article specifically states:
1) "The company, which pulled in $1 billion last year, has a history of run-ins with state and federal regulators for making false claims about its supplements."
2) “The discrepancy between the promised riches and the reality has occasionally landed Melaleuca in hot water with state and federal consumer protection officials. In the early 1990s the company signed settlement agreements with Idaho and Michigan promising to stop misleading potential distributors into thinking they could make thousands selling its products.”
We feel that both statements are grossly inaccurate and slanders Melaleuca’s good name. I'm wondering if you could give us a short, candid response to the following questions:
1) Has there been any interaction between the State of Idaho or your office and Melaleuca in the last 20 years that you would characterize as a “run-in?”
2) Has your office or the state of Idaho ever asked Melaleuca to cease "making false claims about its supplements?"
3) Has your office ever had cause to be concerned that Melaleuca may have made false claims about its products?
4) Has your office or the State of Idaho ever asked Melaleuca to stop "making false claims" about the earning potential of its marketing executives?
5) Did the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance that Melaleuca signed in 1991, require Melaleuca to promise to "stop misleading potential distributors into thinking they could make thousands selling its products?"
6) Did that Assurance of Voluntary Compliance address anything at all regarding false claims about either products or potential earning representations?
7) Are you aware of any complaints about Melaleuca misrepresenting what can be earned by Melaleuca Marketing Executives? And if so, has your department deemed it necessary to take action against Melaleuca regarding such complaint?
8) Are you aware of any complaints to the Idaho Attorney General’s Office from Melaleuca customers or anyone else that Melaleuca has made false claims about our supplements?
As you know in today’s environment of the internet, these stories take on a life of their own and can get quickly out of hand. Time is of the essence. Our questions should be pretty easy to answer. We are addressing them to you because, according to our records, you personally conducted the “investigation” some twenty years ago. We appreciate your long term service to Idaho. We would be grateful if you could respond sometime on Wednesday. Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Damond Watkins
Vice President of Corporate Relations
Melaleuca, Inc.
