There's now another way to obtain a refund from Lyoness, and this refund method also gives you back interest on your Lyoness losses.
Affiliates have until January 31st 2020 to claim their refund.
Please contact the Austrian Association for Consumer Information (VKI)
Association for Consumer Information (VKI)
Linke Wienzeile 18
A - 1060 Vienna
Phone: 01/588 770
Fax Consulting: 01/588 77-71
Fax Management: 01/588 77-73
Mail: konsument@vki.at
Agreement between VKI and Lyoness - consumers get money back
Until 31.01.2020, other victims can contact the VKI
The Association for Consumer Information (VKI) has represented numerous consumers against Lyoness since the summer of 2017. The basis for the fundraising campaign was a procedure won by the Supreme Court (OGH) on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs, which went against clauses in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of the years 2007 to 2012 to the? Extended membership benefits? taught. Now a settlement solution could be reached together with Lyoness. Lyoness reimburses the participants the amounts paid plus interest less any membership benefits. Affected persons who have not yet participated in the collection campaign can contact the VKI until 31.01.2020. The mere participation in the shopping community is not affected by the collection campaign.
In July 2017, the OGH declared numerous clauses on so-called "extended membership benefits" to be intransparent and ineffective in the collective action brought by the VKI with the support of the Ministry of Social Affairs. According to OGH, the terms and conditions and the additional terms and conditions (ZAGB) from the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012 were formulated unnecessarily difficult to understand. The voucher payment system also classified the OGH as intransparent.
According to VKI's legal opinion, this decision also removed the legal basis for consumer payments to Lyoness.
As a result, the VKI started a collection campaign so that the affected Lyoness customers could get their cash back. After extensive negotiations, a settlement could now be agreed. Lyoness will reimburse consumers with contracts based on the 2007 to 2012 terms and conditions. Any membership benefits received (eg the Friendship Bonus) will be deducted. From the balance, consumers will receive an additional four percent interest per annum for three years.
The VKI welcomes the agreement: "For many affected consumers, this comparison is a sensible way, which saves them from having to go to court," says Mag. Ulrike Wolf, Head of the Collection Department, Legal Division. The agreement is also viewed positively by Lyoness: "We have always been and continue to strive to find solutions in the interests of our customers."
Anyone who has missed the deadline to register for the collection campaign, can later by 31.01.2020 at the VKI under the service e-mail aktion-lyoness@vki.at report. "We are pleased to enable other consumers to come up with a settlement solution," explains Wolf.
Change of the terms and conditions
Already in 2014, the contractual basis of Lyoness was changed. These new agreements (for Lyoness members on the one hand and for entrepreneurial Lyconet Marketer on the other) were not the subject of the OGH decision. The cross-industry and cross-border cashback and customer loyalty program is also unaffected.
The current settlement solution also applies to those consumers who have only switched to the terms and conditions for Lyoness members in the 2014 version. No agreement could be reached for those Lyoness members who have accepted the so-called Lyconet Agreement for independent Lyconet Marketers. For them, the comparison described does not apply. In individual cases, however, according to the VKI, there could also be individual solutions here.'
https://behindmlm.com/companies/lyoness/lyoness-victims-able-to-recover-2007-to-2012-losses/
30th June 2019
30th June 2019
A message from Ben Ecker regarding the current refunds from Lyoness:
Dear Lyoness members & all parties concerned,
We have compiled a number of questions that have been put to us in respect to matters pertaining to Lyoness, respective court judgments and the processes in which we are able to successfully lodge and execute claims for Lyoness victims in Australia and elsewhere throughout the world.
We trust that the information in this email will be instrumental in helping you and further parties understand part of the legal process in which we are reclaiming money back for Lyoness victims.
In the final paragraphs we make reference to comments made by Lyoness employees Chris Thomson (U.K) & Jeff Rowlison (AUS) which I have lodged formal complaints to the U.K Fraud Police and the Australian Consumer Competition Commission (ACCC) in respect to serious fraud allegations.
I am very pleased to announce that more Australian settlements are being paid each week as we proceed and we will continue to support the members in the successful lodgement and settlement of further claims until such time that all members claims have been lodged and settled.
Please find the questions and answers below.
1/ My understanding is that you are lodging claims on behalf of Australian victims under the Austrian (Commercial Court of Vienna) Court judgement relating to '61 clauses of the Lyoness T&C's 'Null & Void' in favour of all victims across the world, including Australia.
Does this judgement only relate to the T&C's for 2007 to 2012, or all periods 2007 to 2017?
Yes, the Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling on the Terms and Conditions only refers to the Terms and Conditions of 2007–2012.
The sixty-one invalid points in the Terms and Conditions are only part of my legal reasoning; the many rulings and classifications as a pyramid scheme in Austria and Switzerland, the ban in Norway, a court case seeking a ban in Italy and related assessments also played a role. The “Schlüssel zum Erfolg”/“key to success” cession is generally included in the claims case.
I have been uncovering fake business alliances and collaborations claimed by Lyoness and widely publishing my findings for years, which has earned me a certain reputation at Lyoness. Unearthing and publishing Lyoness’ fake MasterCard Partnership has left its mark on Lyoness up to the present. The court has been dealing with a lawsuit against me in this regard for three years, and has become a source of hilarity for the lawyers as Lyoness has been delaying a ruling on its own suit with all sorts of excuses – they cannot win as that would mean proving that they aren’t a pyramid scheme.
The way I approach a Lyoness case depends on the amount at dispute and type of claim; I usually try to reach an out-of-court settlement first, but this is usually only possible for smaller amounts.
2) Are there new proceedings filed against Freidl in the Austrian Courts, after he paid a penalty, but no judgement yet?
Unfortunately not. Hubert Freidl moved to Monaco when the lawsuit against him for breach of prospectus liability was announced. He should not be the direct target, we have to dismantle his company bit by bit, uncover the company’s lies and bring the matter to the media.
3) Am I correct in saying that T&C's for the period 2014 to 2017 are not included under this judgement in 1) above and fall under other judgements in other Austrian Courts?
If this is the case, does these judgements allow injured members/ merchants to successfully claim refunds through you?
Yes, this is correct. Austrian courts have condemned the Terms and Conditions from 2012–2017 several times as intransparent and obscure.
Graz Regional Court for Civil Matters found for the applicant in Case No. 5 R 212/16g on 18 January 2017 as follows:
The appeal raised by Lyoness is inadmissible, as is a revision of the ruling according to the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) §502 para. 2. This judgement is final.
Extract from the reasons given in the ruling (Page 4):
“The system established by the defendant that takes substantial payments to redistribute, retain and distribute them again is impenetrable and obscure. The plethora of terminological definitions in the Terms and Conditions and Supplementary Terms and Conditions play a role in this, with meanings that are difficult or impossible for members to understand and could not be established on the basis of the documents. The applicant’s claim for repayment of the amount paid was based on the nullity of the legal transaction concluded between the parties according to of Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 para. 1 as the case involved an illegal pyramid scheme according to Austrian Commercial Code (UGB) §2 Annex Z 14. Moreover, the respondent based the contractual relationship solely on the respondent’s incomprehensible Terms and Conditions. These are void according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a as they include objectively unusual provisions that significantly differ from the expectations of the other contracting party, who should not be required to anticipate such provisions under the circumstances. The Terms and Conditions also include grossly discriminatory provisions that are null and void according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 and Austrian Consumer Protection Act (KSchG) §6 para. 3. The Terms and Conditions of 2014 did not become the basis for the contractual relationship according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a. Moreover, these Terms and Conditions are void as they violate moral standards and lack transparency. Further, the applicant declared acceptance of the Terms and Conditions of 2014 in error due to lack of disclosure or deception on the part of the respondent. The applicant also exercises the right to premature termination of the contract for cause, or in the alternative, to terminate the contract, thus justifying the claim for repayment.”
“Moreover, the court of first instance considered numerous clauses to be void on their own merit and collectively according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 para. 3 on the grounds that they limited the right of customer to a refund of down payments or part payments already made in an objectively obscure fashion and especially for reasons largely at the discretion of the respondent, which are not only obscure but also grossly discriminatory against the customer. Whether the new Terms and Conditions for Lyoness members issued in November 2014 and the Lyconet agreement in the version of November 2014 ever became part of the contract according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a is moot. All provisions in the T&Cs limiting or excluding a customer’s right to a refund of down payments or part payments already made on termination of the contract were just as grossly discriminatory and intransparent as those in the previous versions of the Terms and Conditions.”
4) Is there a Court judgement enabling injured members to lodge successful claims under the T&C's for 2012 to 2014?
Yes, this is possible.
There have been some corresponding rulings depending on the investment in Lyoness (cloud, country packages etc.) It would be advisable to pursue this case in Australia and involve the respective authorities.
In response to the message from Chris Thomson:
What he writes is utterly irrelevant. If there is anything I’ve learned from Lyoness, it’s that nobody should ever enter into a written or verbal argument with them. They always twist and misrepresent everything afterwards. This message looks almost desperate, and clearly demonstrates that he isn’t one of the “fat cats” at Lyoness.
I certainly wouldn’t take the matter further as success always trumps any argument. How did this Chris Thomson actually get to contact you, and why do you feel the need to respond? This individual doesn’t contact me.
Finally, I can assure you that I’ve already had enough of dealing with Lyoness. This Chris Thomson or Mr. Rowling are insignificant and not worth the bother. -
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / kind regards
Dear Lyoness members & all parties concerned,
We have compiled a number of questions that have been put to us in respect to matters pertaining to Lyoness, respective court judgments and the processes in which we are able to successfully lodge and execute claims for Lyoness victims in Australia and elsewhere throughout the world.
We trust that the information in this email will be instrumental in helping you and further parties understand part of the legal process in which we are reclaiming money back for Lyoness victims.
In the final paragraphs we make reference to comments made by Lyoness employees Chris Thomson (U.K) & Jeff Rowlison (AUS) which I have lodged formal complaints to the U.K Fraud Police and the Australian Consumer Competition Commission (ACCC) in respect to serious fraud allegations.
I am very pleased to announce that more Australian settlements are being paid each week as we proceed and we will continue to support the members in the successful lodgement and settlement of further claims until such time that all members claims have been lodged and settled.
Please find the questions and answers below.
1/ My understanding is that you are lodging claims on behalf of Australian victims under the Austrian (Commercial Court of Vienna) Court judgement relating to '61 clauses of the Lyoness T&C's 'Null & Void' in favour of all victims across the world, including Australia.
Does this judgement only relate to the T&C's for 2007 to 2012, or all periods 2007 to 2017?
Yes, the Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling on the Terms and Conditions only refers to the Terms and Conditions of 2007–2012.
The sixty-one invalid points in the Terms and Conditions are only part of my legal reasoning; the many rulings and classifications as a pyramid scheme in Austria and Switzerland, the ban in Norway, a court case seeking a ban in Italy and related assessments also played a role. The “Schlüssel zum Erfolg”/“key to success” cession is generally included in the claims case.
I have been uncovering fake business alliances and collaborations claimed by Lyoness and widely publishing my findings for years, which has earned me a certain reputation at Lyoness. Unearthing and publishing Lyoness’ fake MasterCard Partnership has left its mark on Lyoness up to the present. The court has been dealing with a lawsuit against me in this regard for three years, and has become a source of hilarity for the lawyers as Lyoness has been delaying a ruling on its own suit with all sorts of excuses – they cannot win as that would mean proving that they aren’t a pyramid scheme.
The way I approach a Lyoness case depends on the amount at dispute and type of claim; I usually try to reach an out-of-court settlement first, but this is usually only possible for smaller amounts.
2) Are there new proceedings filed against Freidl in the Austrian Courts, after he paid a penalty, but no judgement yet?
Unfortunately not. Hubert Freidl moved to Monaco when the lawsuit against him for breach of prospectus liability was announced. He should not be the direct target, we have to dismantle his company bit by bit, uncover the company’s lies and bring the matter to the media.
3) Am I correct in saying that T&C's for the period 2014 to 2017 are not included under this judgement in 1) above and fall under other judgements in other Austrian Courts?
If this is the case, does these judgements allow injured members/ merchants to successfully claim refunds through you?
Yes, this is correct. Austrian courts have condemned the Terms and Conditions from 2012–2017 several times as intransparent and obscure.
Graz Regional Court for Civil Matters found for the applicant in Case No. 5 R 212/16g on 18 January 2017 as follows:
The appeal raised by Lyoness is inadmissible, as is a revision of the ruling according to the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) §502 para. 2. This judgement is final.
Extract from the reasons given in the ruling (Page 4):
“The system established by the defendant that takes substantial payments to redistribute, retain and distribute them again is impenetrable and obscure. The plethora of terminological definitions in the Terms and Conditions and Supplementary Terms and Conditions play a role in this, with meanings that are difficult or impossible for members to understand and could not be established on the basis of the documents. The applicant’s claim for repayment of the amount paid was based on the nullity of the legal transaction concluded between the parties according to of Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 para. 1 as the case involved an illegal pyramid scheme according to Austrian Commercial Code (UGB) §2 Annex Z 14. Moreover, the respondent based the contractual relationship solely on the respondent’s incomprehensible Terms and Conditions. These are void according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a as they include objectively unusual provisions that significantly differ from the expectations of the other contracting party, who should not be required to anticipate such provisions under the circumstances. The Terms and Conditions also include grossly discriminatory provisions that are null and void according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 and Austrian Consumer Protection Act (KSchG) §6 para. 3. The Terms and Conditions of 2014 did not become the basis for the contractual relationship according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a. Moreover, these Terms and Conditions are void as they violate moral standards and lack transparency. Further, the applicant declared acceptance of the Terms and Conditions of 2014 in error due to lack of disclosure or deception on the part of the respondent. The applicant also exercises the right to premature termination of the contract for cause, or in the alternative, to terminate the contract, thus justifying the claim for repayment.”
“Moreover, the court of first instance considered numerous clauses to be void on their own merit and collectively according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 para. 3 on the grounds that they limited the right of customer to a refund of down payments or part payments already made in an objectively obscure fashion and especially for reasons largely at the discretion of the respondent, which are not only obscure but also grossly discriminatory against the customer. Whether the new Terms and Conditions for Lyoness members issued in November 2014 and the Lyconet agreement in the version of November 2014 ever became part of the contract according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a is moot. All provisions in the T&Cs limiting or excluding a customer’s right to a refund of down payments or part payments already made on termination of the contract were just as grossly discriminatory and intransparent as those in the previous versions of the Terms and Conditions.”
4) Is there a Court judgement enabling injured members to lodge successful claims under the T&C's for 2012 to 2014?
Yes, this is possible.
There have been some corresponding rulings depending on the investment in Lyoness (cloud, country packages etc.) It would be advisable to pursue this case in Australia and involve the respective authorities.
In response to the message from Chris Thomson:
What he writes is utterly irrelevant. If there is anything I’ve learned from Lyoness, it’s that nobody should ever enter into a written or verbal argument with them. They always twist and misrepresent everything afterwards. This message looks almost desperate, and clearly demonstrates that he isn’t one of the “fat cats” at Lyoness.
I certainly wouldn’t take the matter further as success always trumps any argument. How did this Chris Thomson actually get to contact you, and why do you feel the need to respond? This individual doesn’t contact me.
Finally, I can assure you that I’ve already had enough of dealing with Lyoness. This Chris Thomson or Mr. Rowling are insignificant and not worth the bother. -
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / kind regards
B. Ecker
BE Conflict Management Inc.
