Young Living

July 2021: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

June 2020: This case was transferred from a court in Texas to one in Utah. (Case No. 20-cv-470, D. Utah)

May 2020: The stay in this case was lifted.

April 2020: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny arbitration. (O’Shaugnessy et al. v. Young Living Essential Oils,, L.C. et al., Case No. 19-51169, 5th Cir.)

February 2020: The district court case was stayed pending the appeal regarding the arbitration decision.

December 2019: Young Living and the other defendants filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the court’s denial of the motions to compel arbitration.

November 2019: A federal court judge accepted the October 2019 Report and Recommendation and denied the motions to compel arbitration.

October 2019: A federal magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the motions to compel arbitration concluding that, because the Arbitration Clause and the Forum Selection Clause conflicted, there was no “meeting of the minds” (a contract law doctrine requiring parties to agree to the same terms, conditions, and subject matter to form a contract) and, therefore, no binding arbitration agreement.

June 2019: Young Living and the three individual defendants filed motions to compel arbitration.

April 2019: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Young Living and three of its executives alleging that the MLM company is a pyramid scheme and that members are rewarded for recruiting others to join instead of selling essential oil products. The complaint further claims that the company promises that members will attain financial success when, according to the plaintiffs, 94% of members earn an average of $1 a month in commissions. (O’Shaughnessy et al. v. Young Living Essential Oils et al., Case No. 19-cv-412, W. D. Tex.)