Talk:Lyoness/Archives/2015

Edit war stirring?
There is an edit war surfacing between myself and OrbitalCannon, as well as a few unregistered members regarding this page. My goal is to allow a viewer to get a clear picture of Lyoness in its 3 major components - the corporation, the shopping community and the network marketing arm (Lyconet).

The main page of Lyoness should clearly distinguish these and delegate the concerns of each component to a particular page.

The edit war is occuring because I attempted to define and separate these components into pages while the opposing party is attempting to write a single monolithic article and support their claims through unverifiable or illegitimate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your goal is to censure and divide information as much as possibole to make it so unclear that you can keep scam/fraud people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The goal of the article should be to maintain a neutral point of view and support assertions with factual claims. If you have documented cases of scam and fraud, then link to them. Note that the documentation should be from legitimate sources. In the USA, such sources are the FTC, SEC, and the state and federal attorney generals. So my question to you [User:Littleolle], is how many such cases can you provide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The goal should be about info, soo when you censuring info about on going cort acction then you are doing vandalism. In many countrys lawenforcement keep there investegations open in a few for several years becouse they want to end thit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree about ongoing court action because it is a legitimate and authentic source. I also agree with the data about "Platform Lyonesse". Both should be published. I did not censor either. I moved them to an article about Lyconet, which is where they belong because that is the network marketing arm of Lyoness. Dont speak in generalities about "ongoing investigations" - list each one with a link. To my knowledge, the only active court case against Lyoness is in Australia - ACCC vs Lyoness. What I do not agree with are 2 things. First, many of your criticisms have to do with Lyoness prior to November 8, 2014 when they switched over to their new terms and operating conditions. Second, you are reverting a version of the article using non-authoritative sources. Amway has had ongoing litigations and they are still around too. Lawsuits and court cases dont mean the company is illegal - it just means something has been called to court for a ruling - many companies deal with such issues in their history. And if you notice, Lyoness has not been ordered to cease and desist operations in any country, save for an initial period in Norway (and they now operate there fully legally as well). Furthermore, they have physical offices in every country they do business in and they get legal approval to do business before they commence operations there. If you look closely at the Australian court case, you will see that the prosecution has no leg to stand on whatsoever. People who criticise Lyoness dont even understand how it really operates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I also recommend that you spend some time learning about Lyoness and Lyconet as it is now. I removed numerous references to things which are no longer a part of Lyoness - accounting units, downpayment, premium membership, etc. Until you have a thorough training in Lyoness proper, you are simply parakeeting things from unofficial sources. And that is a waste of time and fails to maintain neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dont separate lyoness and lyconet, lyconet is not just an arm of lyoness. Your truley Hubert him self says Its all about positions, positions, positions in documents that have leeked out from you internal info. in future the ACCC case will show us that the main income for lyoness is in fact positions. Iam truley sorry for you that your involvd in this sect! And I hope that you will open your eyes one day. In Sweden the Prosecutor's Office put down the preliminary investigation because they could not prove who was behind and NOT if it was iligal. So now the Gaming Board have appealed the odd decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 06:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Littleolle, let's first take Lyoness' history in Norway. They were in fact prohibited from operating temporarily because their income was initially derived from recruiting and not shopping. But do you see that the restriction has been lifted by the Norwegian authorities? Do you see that they now operate legally there?

"Positions" as you put it, are what make Lyoness unique among shopping communities. You need to realize that these "positions" can be obtained in two ways, both by shopping and commitment to future shopping. Ask yourself: if there are 50,000 small businesses offering Lyoness cashback and shopping points on a daily basis all around the world, and Lyoness takes 1% of these transactions, then why would their income derive primarily from commitments to future shopping when there is so much actual shopping going on in Lyoness?

And finally, I want to ask you to do a little imagination. Let's say that you were going to start a shopping community. You would need office space, advertising, and salaries for employees. You would also need cashback equipment. Answer me a question: if you were just starting a shopping community, where would you get all the capital for all of these startup expenses.

There is nothing to be sorry about when dealing with Lyoness. Their policies and procedures have always been clearly laid out for those who have taken the time to read and understand them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 09:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Its really odd that a company thats prohibited from operating i a country can change there nubmers to be legal when they in fact are prohibited from operating. "Their policies and procedures have always been clearly laid out for those who have taken the time to read and understand them." well its not soo easy to understand documents writen to not be understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont think it's odd at all. The reason is simple. We both understand that the Norwegian authorities expect a 50-50 split between business members and customers of a country. If there are more business members than customers, then by Norwegian law it is ruled illegal to operate, correct? Now, let's say that in Norway, there are 1000 business members but only 500 customers. That would mean that there are more business members than customers, hence unacceptable. Now, we are at the point where Lyoness was ruled ineglible to operate for that reason. I dont know what the Norwegian authorities did at that point. It appears they issued some sort of warning as opposed to issuing a cease and desist order. I imagine they said something along the lines of: "you are currently operating with too many business members. If this is not rectified within 6 months, we will have to issue a cease and desist order." So, assuming that is the case, then that gives them time to build their customer base. And there are a few ways for Lyoness to do that. One way is to add a small business to the Lyoness network and then have the small business add its customers.

And my example shows you exactly what I trying to impress on you. I asked you a simple question: """ if you were just starting a shopping community, where would you get all the capital for all of these startup expenses.""" and you did not answer. Put on your thinking cap and give me your best answer to that question. The reason I am asking you that question is to get you to see two things: 1) that starting a business requires capital from someone other than customers 2) the initial capital outlay for a business is offered with a complete understanding that it may fail. Sure, there may be very enticing numbers if the business succeeds, but 95% of all businesses fail within the first 10 years.

I understand the Lyoness and Lyconet documents quite well, if you want to go through them from start to finish I am willing to do so. The key to understanding the documents is to ask questions as soon as you dont understand something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 08:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to say a few more things. First, thank you, Littleolle for having a discussion about this. I have tried to talk with OrbitalCannon but he is not responding. Next, I have been a member of Lyoness since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

But its not about % of buissnes members (shops) and card holders, its about mlm money from premium memberships being the main income for lyoness. And lyo have lost in court about the premium part being not understandebole. In every countery lyo starts they say in meetings that they got big companies tied to them but in fact thats allways a lie to get people to invest in the premium part... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 09:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Littleolle, you still have not answered my question. I have asked you twice and will ask you once more: "If you were going to start a shopping community consisting of customers and stores, where would your initial revenue for the first few years come from? How would you cover all the costs associated with starting a shopping community - advertising, employees, office space, information technology (hardware and software)?" Give me an honest answer to that question please.

Now, for your information, there is no such thing as premium membership in Lyoness any more.

Re; " its not about % of buissnes members (shops) and card holders" - From a legal standpoint, it is about the percentage of business members versus customers. Because that is the essential thing that discriminates between a legal MLM and an illegal pyramid scheme. That is why they temporarily had problems in Norway. And that is why they no longer have problems there. It's one of the reasons that Herbalife (an MLM) was in hot water for awhile.

Re: " lyo have lost in court about the premium part being not understandebole" - I dont know of any such cases. And I did purchase the transcripts for the ACCC vs Lyoness case. The judge was ready to close the case quickly in favor of Lyoness. It was clear from the opening minutes that Lyoness was 100% legal. I only purchased the first hearing of the case because it costs $200 to get the transcripts each time they come out and there have been 2 or 3 more hearings since then.

You stated "In every countery lyo starts they say in meetings that they got big companies tied to them" - I dont think you can back that statement up. You need to understand how Lyoness operates when they enter a country. It goes through 3 phases.
 * 1) Phase 1: get legal approval and establish physical offices.
 * 2) Phase 2: network with small businesses and people interested in a home business. Accept the cashback card at small businesses. Purchase gift cards from national chains to attract their attention by long-term high-volume purchases.
 * 3) Phase 3: earn the right to have the cashback card installed at national chains because of the number of members and the amount of shopping. Phase 3 is starting in Europe as we speak.

Also, I think you need to make a distinction between what Lyoness the company says versus what an unscrupulous independant business representative (IBR) says. For instance, the person in the Dragon's Den video had no business talking about Lyoness. He didn't know what he was saying and he was not approved by Lyoness to make that presentation. In his case, he was simply uninformed, he was not intentionally deceptive. But either way, it was bad for Lyoness image.

About your questions, I dident awnser becourse its not relevant. Oooo so lyo has change the premium part name, that dosent mean its no longer exist but hey its just an "arm" under lyconet... about Norway, it was an pore investigation, all they did was ask lyo for documents and no more. 61 illegal clauses in the terms and conditions of the company say a astrian court, lyo has appeld but dont get your hopes up here. about fhase 3 in europe, no way that you can put your lyo card out of your pocket and swipe the card in a card reader at any big chain ever! and fhase 3 started a long time a go in europe, they told me tey was in fhase 3 in 2013... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why you say my question is not relevant. I find it very relevant. Could you tell me why you find it irrelevant? No, it's not just a name change, there simply does not exist that sort of option for starting a Lyconet/Lyoness business anymore. I would be curious to read where you say there are 61 illegal clauses in the term and conditions. And of course, one has to ask: Lyoness is headquartered in Austria and has been since 2003. And they have never been ordered to cease operations. So how is it that they have been operating for 12 years if what they are doing is illegal and the courts have determined it? About your statement that Lyoness will never be accepted at a national chain, we will have to see. May I ask which country you are in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Its not relevat becourse we are talking about a company and not about me. but I would not use MLM structure at all if I were to start a discount club. and I certainly would not say that I had an agreement with chains, I do not have. you have financial interests in lyoness so its not a good ide for you to delite parts of the article. you did delite a part of the article becouse it was not controversial. well maybe not but if you was not in financial interests then you would have put the text in the right place instead of deliting it. so stop you vanalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.196.55 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC) and for you metaperl to read http://gvh.hu/sajtoszoba/sajtokozlemenyek/2013-as_sajtokozlemenyek/8506_hu_megteveszto_lyoness_reklamok_miatt_birsagolt_a_gvh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "Its not relevat becourse we are talking about a company and not about me. but I would not use MLM structure at all if I were to start a discount club." - I didnt say you would use an MLM structure. I simply asked you what you would do to acquire funds. I think we can both agree that you would need about 1 million dollars minimum to start a shopping community. Now, my question to you is: How would you get such money? And how soon would you expect to earn enough revenue from your customer base so that could stop accepting loans and have a profitable company whose revenue was based solely on revenue from customers?
 * Re: "you have financial interests in lyoness so its not a good ide for you to delite parts of the article." - my goal is for the article to maintain a neutral point of view and be factual. Like I said, I have no problem with the data on the ACCC vs. Lyoness because it is accurate and current. I have no problems with the data on Platform Lyonesse because it is accurate and current. I have serious problems with the Dragon's Den data because it is inaccurate. I have serious problems with listing things from blogs and magazines because these are not official government bodies. And if you wanted to be neutral and objective about this, you would have the same opinion. Also I have problems with listing closed court cases because they are no longer relevant to Lyoness, particularly if they occurred after November 8, 2014 when Lyoness instituted a new set of terms and conditions. In that light, even the ACCC rulings dont mean much because everything about the case has to do with the previous terms of Lyoness. But even the old Lyoness is clearly not a pyramid scheme. The judge made that decision very early in the proceedings. Which I took the time and money to purchase and read. If you want to share expenses to buy the remainder of the proceedings, I am more than happy to do so.
 * Re: "and for you metaperl to read http://gvh.hu/sajtoszoba/sajtokozlemenyek/2013-as_sajtokozlemenyek/8506_hu_megteveszto_lyoness_reklamok_miatt_birsagolt_a_gvh.html " - I dont read Hungarian. I got a poor translation of that in Google Chrome. What I see is that Lyoness was charged with 2 counts of misleading advertising. One was about how quickly they would receive payment and the other was about where the cashback card could be used. They were found liable in the first count and not the second count. So now what? I dont know of any major company that has not had to pay civil fines at one time or the other. That doesnt mean I quit taking advantage of their service and it does not mean that they are a criminal company. It just means that they made a mistake. And note that they only had to pay a civil fine. There were no criminal charges. And also, please retract your statements about Lyoness lyings about their agreements with national chains because the very article you linked to me plainly says that their advertisements did not mislead people in that way (they were only found liable on one of the two charges). So now what? This is now past history. In fact it is 3 years old. Have there been any repeat violations? Why are you so fixated on something that happened 3 years ago? Has this minor civil offense been repeated?

--Metaperl (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OrbitalCannon these things were not moved to Lyconet when Lyoness restructured. They do not exist as options anymore. I would encourage you to use verifiable sources for your editing of this article. There is no such thing as a gift card down payment anymore. You will not find it in any current Lyoness / Lyconet documents. That is inaccurate. Beyond that, there are three main issues with the page as it stands now: Neutral point of view Verifiable sources Current information - unless you have training direct
 * Re:

- Just because they don't exist anymore or exist under different name, it doesn't make them less or of no importance. There are still active court cases against Lyoness that implicate old compensation plan with gift cards and premium membership. There is no logical justification for removal of this information. As for neutral point of view, I doubt we can get anything except biased views from Lyoness affiliate(s). So far you haven't provided your verifiable sources, on the other hand you actively engaged in censoring wikipedia entry with removal of Controversy section and other edits, which made Lyoness wiki page look more as some sort of informecial instead of neutral point of view. And apparently to you, if we don't have direct training from Lyoness/Lyconet, we are not correctly/currently informed. Am I right about that ? --OrbitalCannon (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

re 1: " I didnt say you would use an MLM structure." no you asked how I would finance such an enterprise, and my answer was that thats is not rellevant, but that I would not do like Lyoness and choose MLM structure. period. re2: Iam objectiv becourse I have no financial intrest in making lyoness look good or bad. cant say that about you. re3: thats one of atleast 2 courts that have come to conclusion that lyo is doing misleading advertising, and Hubert have had som assets frozen under ongoing invertergations. /littleolle

The following sentence in the internet section does not provide verifiable information - """On the Internet, various websites and blogs from all over the world have focused critical attention on Lyoness, accusing the company of illegal business practices (mainly of running pyramid and Ponzi schemes) and questioning the alleged partnerships between Lyoness and several multinational corporations, as well as the validity and relevance of the certificates granted to the Lyoness shopping community.""" - blogs are verifiable only when run by an organization that has a fact-checking process as discussed here. Furthermore the statement is made without linking to a particular website or blog, so it is not verifiable. Metaperl (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you wish so hard to remove is directly tied to case about platform-lyoness, made by former members of Lyoness, who again were in legal battle with Lyoness, cause of used name and criticsm aimed against Lyoness itself. So its still has some logical meaning. OrbitalCannon (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lyoness have sade they have hade direct contract with big corperationes like, lidl, microsoft and master card but they dont. they lie to lure in small bussness /littleolle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Re : "The sentence you wish so hard to remove is directly tied to case about platform-lyoness," - that is completely false. If you look above you will see me saying "I also agree with the data about "Platform Lyonesse". - so your statement is not only false, but you clearly have not taken time to read this material. Metaperl (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Lyoness have sade they have hade direct contract with big corperationes like, lidl, microsoft and master card but they dont. they lie to lure in small business" - can you substantiate this statement? Don't you think the small business has the right to investigate before joining? Dont you think there would be numerous lawsuits from small businesses about deceptive advertising? The fact of the matter is you cannot back up your statements with any physical evidence. Metaperl (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You can just read one of the greeks defence letter to the media and open your eyes. its less expensive to just bite the sour apple then to go to court for a medium company. and yes they have the right to investergate thats why lyoness growt is nothing to talk about. /littleolle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.99.41 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Certifications
My recent section on certifications was removed on the grounds that Lyoness has not been a member for 15 years. If that is the case, then please explain this link. Metaperl (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

what I can see, someone did delite becourse "not true, Lyoness is member of Liebetribe Austria since 10 years" and that sounds abit like your behavior... /littleolle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolle (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Lyoness investigated by General Direction for Consumer Affairs, Competition and Financial Fraud Control (DGCCRF) in France
Is it enough to be put in the article? http://quechoisir.org/argent-assurance/epargne-fiscalite/placement-financier/actualite-lyoness-du-cash-back-au-systeme-pyramidal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.231.176.203 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Lyoness is not pyramid scheme
Experts have confirmed that Lyoness is not a pyramid scheme and that is all legal. This should be put into an article. BlackArrow (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source that denies the entire paragraph 'Controversy'. BlackArrow (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the opinions on this controversial topic are very different, and thus it's good to add the opinions of as many as possible (as long as the opinions are well-presented and well-sourced). A Wikipedia article should most definitely not say that Lyoness is or is not a pyramid scheme. Nevertheless, it would benefit the article if the opinion of legal experts (from both sides) is included. Lyoness expert (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category Pyramid and Ponzi schemes is removed. See source above. BlackArrow (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

=
======================

Lyoness no longer considered pyramid scheme since 27 August, after so much finally generated discussion came the final result, which is in favor of Lyoness (decision of the Court of Vienna Regional). The Lyoness group divides its three business areas into two brands: Lyoness brand encompasses the business community and loyalty program. Its target groups are consumers who want to save money by shopping with Lyoness (Cashback) and loyalty merchants who want to use an international multi-sectoral loyalty program. The Lyconet brand encompasses all the network marketing activities Lyoness group. The target groups are independent and company workers. The Lyoness group is currently active in 46 countries in all continents. More than 5 million members enjoy the benefits of Lyoness loyalty in over 50,000 properties worldwide. (source: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20150827_OTS0230/lyoness-geht-von-verfahrenseinstellung-aus)

My request would be to take the next part of the text that is in the description of the company ... "Lyoness is suspected to be a pyramid scheme in several of the countries it operates in. In homeland Austria, Lyoness has been declared a pyramid scheme by four independent civil courts.[8] Criminal investigations have also been concluded by the Austrian Economic and Corruption Prosecutor ("WKStA"), who maintains that Lyoness operates an illegal pyramid scheme.[9][10] Lyoness expects to be cleared of all charges.[11] In Norway, Lyoness was found to have operated an illegal pyramid scheme in 2012 and 2013.[12] In Australia, Lyoness is under prosecution by the ACCC for operating an illegal pyramid scheme.[13][14] The trial has ended and the judgment was reserved.[15][16] In Sweden, the responsible authority concluded that Lyoness is a pyramid scheme and reported Lyoness to the Stockholm police.[17] While initially halted, an appeal by the Gaming Board led to a continuation of the investigation by the Stockholm Police.[18] In Poland, France, Hungary and Lithuania, similar investigations have been conducted or are ongoing.[19][20][21][22][23] In Greece, the Austrian Lyoness directors have been accused of various types of fraud by the local authorities.[24][25] Lyoness vehemently denies all allegations."

Controversy: Official versus Opinionated
In my opinion the controversy section should have the legal issues in a separate section. This is because legal action is handled by official authorities and is usually based on objective research. The television and internet section are not nearly as authoritative and certainly is not nearly is as objective. Also in creating a separate legal section, I would like to separate it into open versus closed cases, with the closed case section citing the result of the closed case.

Metaperl (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the reported income from Lyoness a subject of contoversy?
The controversy section contains an outdated income disclosure statement. The most recent one is available http://lyo.me/ids

Without an explanation of what is controversial about this, it cannot remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep the opening of the article free of "pyramid scheme suspicions"
The section in the opener "Lyoness is suspected to be a pyramid scheme in several of the countries it operates in" belongs in the controversy section at best. Suspicion is not fact. And only fact belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From my talk page:
 * As per Samtar, you'll want to seek an agreement with other editors before making such a huge change. The quality of the sources already presented in the lead section is impressive, so I'd be on the fence with such a change. It seems important enough to keep in the lead for now until strong evidence to suggest that Lyoness is not highly illegal can be found, if that makes sense. While bearing no relation in terms of subject matter, an article like Jimmy Savile for example summarises the sexual abuse section in the lead while expanding upon it in the article body. It's a matter of opinion right now, but the current revision seems better.  Nott Nott  talk &#124;contrib 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, the fact that the article uses the word 'suspicion' has little to do with the quality of the sources - it's a word. The legibility and importance of the sources in the lead should be of critical importance when it comes to judging up how to WP:BALANCE the article. Nobody would disagree with you that only fact belongs in the article.  Nott Nott  talk &#124;contrib 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

NottNott, you wrote """It seems important enough to keep in the lead for now until strong evidence to suggest that Lyoness is not highly illegal can be found, """ --> you are basically saying "let's consider inconclusive accusations as valid until they are shown to be invalid." I would encourage you to approach this with an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. In fact, I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but there was a recent court case in Australia versus Lyoness and all charges against Lyoness were dropped. The opener of an article is supposed to give a balanced overview. If you want to place a single line in the opener which links to the controversy section, even that is more appropriate than repeating the Controversy section in the opener.

Metaperl (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the evidence that Lyoness is not highly illegal rests on the fact that they have completed on the open marketplace in 46 countries for 12 years and not once have been ordered to cease and desist. If your goal is to inform people, then expect the educated person to read the entire article with a balanced mindset and put each topic in it's proper place. Metaperl (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

NottNott you wrote """In addition, the fact that the article uses the word 'suspicion' has little to do with the quality of the sources """ -> I will accept your point that it does not imply anything about the quality of sources. But I also expect you to accept that the word suspicion tells both you and I (and the reader) that there is no conclusive proof. This article is supposed to be about factual information, not suspicion. Metaperl (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)