'Selling false hope': How mums are getting lured into a shampoo business

MONAT shampoo reps accused of exaggerating claims on social media to recruit Aussie mums Fri 31 Jul 2026 at 4:34am These women say they're making "life-changing" money from their "little shampoo business". Their social media feeds show them flicking their luscious locks as they step out of a signature white Range Rover or strutting the globe to bucket list destinations like the Bahamas, Monte Carlo and Dominican Republic. It's all made possible, they say, by selling for global hair and skin care company, MONAT. But the sales pitch isn't just about the cash. It's about being there for school pick-ups, ditching daycare and spending more time with the little people who matter most — their kids. On social media, women are told they can leave the 9-to-5 behind, build a business in pockets of time, and create the kind of family life they've been craving. But beneath the highly choreographed social posts are legal battles, disgruntled sellers and claims of misleading sales tactics. Three former Australian insiders have come forward claiming top earners manipulate the system to reach and maintain lucrative ranks, while most sellers earn little or nothing at all. They say women were sold a vision of financial independence, flexibility and sisterhood, only to discover that meaningful income was largely dependent on recruiting ever-growing teams beneath them. Now, as MONAT faces scrutiny over earnings claims in the United States and former distributors sue the company over its treatment of sellers, questions are being raised over whether some sales practices breach Australian law, and if the company's multi-level marketing (MLM) business model bears the hallmarks of an illegal pyramid scheme. The turning point for Sarah* came beside a pool in Mexico. The influencer had built a team, risen through the ranks and earned enough commissions to qualify for the haircare company's luxury incentive trips. She was considered an Australian success story. But as she sat in the beachside resort, watching dozens of women line up to take selfies with the company's top earners, she felt something was off. "These women were fawning over them, like they were movie stars," she says. Sarah first became intrigued with MONAT in 2022. Seeing another woman's hair transformation, she bought the products as a VIP customer. But soon, her feed was full of content about how much money other women were claiming to rake in, and she began actively selling the following year. "It was very much 'retire your husband', 'this is your business'. It was mothers helping mothers, which was a big thing for me," she says. Sarah had already grown an online following of tens of thousands of people and regularly partnered with brands. "I was like, well, I already know how to do this. This is perfect for me," she says. "In my first month alone, I triple-ranked. So, I made more than $3,000 [on product sales]," she says. So she began to build a team. To become a seller for MONAT, recruits can purchase a product pack costing between $250 and $895. There is a separate $119 starter kit containing product samples, but it doesn't count toward a seller's personal volume. Whoever signs up a new seller, technically becomes their "upline" sponsor. Reps need to pay a $90 annual renewal fee. If they don't renew, their account can be suspended and commissions stopped. If they don't reinstate the account, they risk losing any customers or team members beneath them. There are 12 "ranks" within MONAT. Beginners start as a market partner, with a personal sales volume to achieve. Advancing to higher ranks requires recruiting and building multiple active lines of sellers. Higher ranks unlock larger bonuses and commissions. "That's when the money got bigger," Sarah says. "But, now I've had time to reflect, I was definitely inflating my income." In the United States, the company has twice been scrutinised by the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) over social media posts promoting "financial freedom", "uncapped income" and luxury lifestyles. The industry watchdog challenged dozens of earnings and lifestyle claims made by MONAT reps across two inquiries in 2024 and 2025. In one of the inquiries, 12 of the 18 posts identified by DSSRC were from Australian market partners. As a result, MONAT agreed to remove or amend several of the posts. Before that, the Florida Attorney General investigated MONAT's marketing and business practices in 2018, with the company agreeing to change some advertising behaviour and provide refunds to consumers who felt misled. Despite the regulatory action in the US, it hasn't stopped MONAT reps from continuing to make the same controversial claims, which some believe are misleading. Videos target exhausted working mums living pay cheque to pay cheque, new mums not wanting to return to work, or single mums struggling to make it on their own. Some play on the mum guilt of sending their child to daycare. Then, there's an opportunity to make an uncapped income. MONAT's Motor Club is a centrepiece of that pitch. The "paid for" Range Rovers, Cadillacs and other luxury cars touted by reps on social media are actually performance-based payments, that require sellers to maintain a specific rank in order to keep receiving the bonus. The car repayments can become the responsibility of the individual if they drop below the qualifying rank. Top-performing reps also promote their flashy MONAT-funded trips, flown to luxury destinations across the globe. However, the company's flagship annual conference MONATions is not free, and sellers must pay for flights, accommodation and registration for the events. Loading...Sarah was swept away by the "dopamine hit" of making sales and hitting ranks, posting about paying for groceries and fuel with "shampoo money" even when those purchases were being covered by other income, including her husband's. "There were weeks I'd only get paid $40 or $50 because that's all I'd sold that week. But I was turning around saying, 'I've just paid for groceries, or I've just paid for fuel'. That was not true," she says. She alleges they were told in training calls to "borrow someone else's success". "That was drilled into us in multiple meetings. You may not be successful, but someone else is, so borrow their success." Despite claiming to have 60 to 70 women in her team, she says she would only consider three were "successful", which made her question whether the dream was only achievable for a privileged few. "If you look at the women that were being drawn in, they were single mums, they were often burnt-out mums, mums at home with children. It's a very vulnerable market," she says. "I was seeing women do beyond what I was asking of them and still not making money, still not getting sales." But she claims when she went to her uplines for help they would just respond with: "they just don't believe enough. They don't believe in the vision. They don't believe in the product". "It was … gaslighting, really, like putting it back on us," she says. "In hindsight, it was very cult-y." Sarah now has deep regret and shame for bringing other women into the company and is now speaking out to warn others. "I often think about how many women joined because of me and my perceived success and I feel sick," she says. "Even if they were making money and not losing, I still gave them more hope than I should have." Several insiders, including Sarah, raised allegations with the ABC about sellers manipulating the system. They claim reps were boosting their earnings and climbing ranks by placing new recruits under selected team members for their "business structure" to trigger promotions. A former rep says uplines encouraged them to use Coles and Woolworths debit cards to make it look like their products were being bought by different people to help hit their targets, which she says she did. "The higher up the pyramid you got, the more you were let into secrets and connections," Sarah says. "I was very close to getting the car and I could have got the car if I'd bent the rules. "That never sat well with me." 'They're selling false hope' When Anna* first came across MONAT, she believed it was a natural fit. A self-employed hairdresser, she was looking for a product to introduce to her customers and was enticed by the idea of, eventually, stepping back from the salon altogether. But Anna claims she was quickly pulled into an intensive MONAT routine on top of her existing workload. "Probably at least four or five hours a day [of extra work]" she estimates. Despite trying to build her social media profile around shampoo, Anna says she was quickly steered in a new direction by her upline, Caro Tahana, who is a current top earner in Australia. "I got told… I was talking too much about hair, and I had to bring it back to more of the everyday. Put a post up of you making a coffee or dropping the kids off at school to make it more relatable to other people," she says. "It's definitely not about the product. The product is just the thing to get you in and then it's all about recruiting. "They're selling false hope." Anna admits the pressure of getting to the next level led to engaging in questionable tactics. In messages seen by the ABC, Ms Tahana asked Anna for bank details so she could transfer money, saying "even if I have to purchase the product of the month from you to get you to [the next rank] then I will do that". She tells Anna she needs her to hit the rank by the end of the month so she can make Associate Executive Director, the third rank from the top. Soon after the ABC contacted Direct Selling Australia to ask questions about MONAT, Ms Tahana edited several of her reels by adding an income disclosure statement to the bottom of her posts on Instagram and removed a Facebook reel. The ABC contacted Ms Tahana about all allegations, but she did not respond to questions. MONAT is a member of DSA. In a statement, CEO Geoff Mulham said the company has been in good standing with the group for five years and has received zero complaints. "Our code is clear — sellers must not make income or lifestyle claims without giving people proper context about what typical earnings actually look like," he said. "That applies on social media just as it does anywhere else, and it's something we take seriously and act on any complaints received immediately." He also said the social media era has changed the game for direct selling, and they were actively working on what stronger guidance needs to look like. "The speed and reach of what an individual seller can put out there is unlike anything the industry has faced before,"he said. "I don't think any association can afford to sit still on this one" Jeannie Paterson, a professor of law specialising in consumer protection, says lifestyle claims used to recruit sellers can be "misleading and indeed exploitative" — and could be breaking the law — if the earnings are not realistically attainable through product sales alone. "They're being offered this lucrative opportunity to work in their own time, in flexible hours and make money that will really make a difference to them and if that's not available from selling the product, then that's misleading," she says. "Arguably, it may well be unconscionable if the people who are being targeted perhaps are under a high degree of lifestyle or emotional pressure." Unconscionable conduct is prohibited under Australian Consumer Law. "If those promoted profits are coming from the fact that other people have been recruited, then it starts to look like a pyramid scheme." The Florida-born company is now present in 18 countries, and says it's sold more than $4.87 billion in revenue in 10 years. But the company's own US income disclosures show average annual earnings per seller fell from $758 USD in 2024 to $665 USD in 2025. At the lowest rank, where more than nine in 10 sellers sat, median annual earnings dropped to just $8 USD before expenses. In Australia, the picture is similarly stark: the only available income disclosure from 2024 shows the average annual income across all market partners was $825. Those at the bottom made a median of $0 in annual gross earnings. More than 93 per cent remained at the company's lowest rank, while 0.08 per cent earned median annual gross earnings exceeding $163,000. Zero per cent of sellers sat at the top rank of Senior Executive Director. Sixty-one per cent of Australian market partners did not make any commission in the 2024 calendar year. MONAT says they are considered "inactive" and may have enrolled simply to enjoy product discounts for personal use. In a statement, MONAT said while the company's compensation plan recognised "leadership and team development", commissions are generated through qualifying product sales. "The recent introduction of MONAT Meta Social Commerce further empowers market partners to generate income by selling … MONAT products directly through social platforms," Vice President, Global Marketing, Carla Hernandez said. Business, or employee? After Chloe*'s experience with MONAT, she has been publicly critical of the business structure of MLMs. She joined in 2024, and a "smart start" promotion, meant she earned about $4,500 through bonuses tied to signing up new customers and recruits. But she says she quickly noticed a disconnect between the success being promoted online and the reality faced by many sellers. "It became apparent to me the other reps were actually the main customers," she says. "Most people are not making any money when you factor in how much they're actually spending on the products." At the same time, she says the work seeped into almost every part of her day. She estimates spending three to four hours creating content, messaging potential recruits and participating in team chats and training calls. "You couldn't go anywhere … unless you recruited," she says. Since launching her Instagram page, Chloe says she has heard from more than 100 women who say they were affected by MONAT's business model or have concerns about someone involved. "I just want other women to be able to make an informed decision," she says. Looking back, she now questions whether sellers really operate independent businesses. "You're told you have your own business," she says. "But it's clear that you don't." Her concerns echo allegations made in a class action lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, which claims MONAT misclassified reps as independent contractors despite exercising significant control over how they sell and market products. Glenn Danas is a partner at Clarkson Law Firm in Malibu, California. His firm is representing former market partner Rachel Kreifels in the lawsuit. "She and many others failed to break even," he says. The lawsuit alleges the arrangement allowed MONAT to build a vast salesforce without paying wages, overtime, benefits or reimbursing expenses like internet and phone bills. "They have 100,000 people selling for them [in the US]. And not only are they not paying these folks, they are making money off of them," he says. While Mr Danas stopped short of calling MONAT a pyramid scheme, he says the company's structure relies heavily on recruitment, describing it as a "never-ending, self-perpetuating workforce". "[MONAT is] making boat loads of money and 99 per cent of the people who work for them are making nothing." The matter remains before the courts. Femvertising MLM expert and management professor Deanna Grant-Smith says companies often appeal to women with "femvertising" by marketing it as "an income opportunity" alongside a sense of community and belonging. "You can be a great mother, you can be a girl boss, you can control your own destiny," she says. Ms Grant-Smith argues MLM recruitment frequently taps into pressures such as caring responsibilities, social isolation and cost-of-living concerns, presenting participation as a "silver bullet" solution. "When people are telling you it will be great and you're not accustomed to getting that kind of positive feedback and you don't have the [business] skills to determine if it's a good or a bad opportunity that you're being offered, that's a really dangerous set of circumstances." Professor Paterson says influencers often do not realise Australian consumer law applies to them. "In this case, what they're promoting is an opportunity to work from home, selling a product. And if the income from that product is not available…if that promised return depends on something else like recruiting people to the brand, that's problematic under existing law," she says. "If the company is aware, if the company encourages, if the company is in any way complicit with that advertising, then they are also responsible." In a statement, MONAT said it was committed to operating a responsible, transparent and compliant direct selling business in Australia. "We require all independent market partners to comply with Australian Consumer Law, the Direct Selling Australia Code of Practice, and MONAT's Policies and Procedures, including making truthful, substantiated product and income and claims and avoiding unrealistic expectations," Ms Hernandez said. "As a matter of policy, we do not comment on the personal circumstances of individual Market Partners, confidential compliance matters or legal proceedings." Professor Paterson is calling on the ACCC to investigate. "I think [influencer marketing] is something that's been bubbling away for a while and that perhaps needs a bit of regulatory focus on it to remind the social media world that the rules of Australian consumer law apply for them," she says. In a statement the ACCC said people should be cautious about the claims made by any business scheme. "Some of these schemes are a form of multi-level marketing or pyramid selling," a spokesperson said. "Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, the only people who make money from them are the creators." The ACCC added that pyramid schemes were illegal in Australia while multi-level marketing schemes had obligations under consumer law to not "engage in misleading or deceptive conduct to either recruit new participants or sell the products or services". "Consumers should avoid these schemes. For many schemes, the only way to be profitable is to sell a large volume of goods or provide the service on an ongoing basis." *names have been changed for privacy reasons. Credits Reporting: Melanie Vujkovic and Michael Atkin Editor: Heidi Davoren Graphic design: Sharon Gordon Photography: Glyn Jones Digital production: Melanie Vujkovic Loading...- Share options - Copy link - X (formerly Twitter) [Image text:] o 100 50 50