The defendant developed a sales scheme of MonaVie products (mainly acai berry juices), where persons could benefit primarily through soliciting other persons to join with the scheme.
The defendant claimed that it was not affiliated with MonaVie LLC and that it only offered consumers the possibility to place collective orders for MonaVie products from a MonaVie warehouse in Poland to save from transport costs.
The defendant also claimed that all consumers were in relations directly with MonaVie LLC through partnership and all products were ordered from abroad only for consumers’ personal consumption, which is why no Estonian labeling for products was required.
Yet, during the investigations, the court found that:
- MonaVie products were stored in the defendants’ premises;
- consumers were asked to pay for MonaVie products either in cash or by bank transfer to the bank account of the defendant;
- the defendant offered credit possibilities to consumers ordering MonaVie products, whereas the repayments were to be made either to the bank account of the defendant or its board member;
- the defendant’s board member referred to the defendant’s office as the MonaVie Estonian representation on the Internet;
- MonaVie product presentations were held at the premises of the defendant.