Earn money for losing weight, Ponzi scheme or brilliant idea?

fyi, for those who decide to do this, there is a referral fee if you join and then refer a person who also registers for a challenge; you only collect the fee if you successfully complete your own challenge. Now, to find the address of my nearest Weight Watchers and make myself some new referral "friends."

" Referrals. You are eligible for a referral bonus of $20 for each person who registers for HealthyWage and pays for a HealthyWage challenge (or signs up for the free BMI Challenge if he/she gets a timely verified weigh-in) based on (and after) your referral and who properly enters your registration number during his/her registration. The bonus will be added to your total prize. You will not receive the bonus if you do not win the prize (i.e., you will not receive the bonus if you do not win the Ten Percent Challenge). You will not receive a referral bonus if the person you referred does not enter your registration number during his/her registration."

maxfleischer said:   fyi, for those who decide to do this, there is a referral fee if you join and then refer a person who also registers for a challenge; you only collect the fee if you successfully complete your own challenge. Now, to find the address of my nearest Weight Watchers and make myself some new referral "friends."

" Referrals. You are eligible for a referral bonus of $20 for each person who registers for HealthyWage and pays for a HealthyWage challenge (or signs up for the free BMI Challenge if he/she gets a timely verified weigh-in) based on (and after) your referral and who properly enters your registration number during his/her registration. The bonus will be added to your total prize. You will not receive the bonus if you do not win the prize (i.e., you will not receive the bonus if you do not win the Ten Percent Challenge). You will not receive a referral bonus if the person you referred does not enter your registration number during his/her registration."

I can confirm that the referral bonus shows up in your total "reward level" once another person you referred successfully signs up.

For example, if doing the 10% Challenge and one other person signs up using your registration number, it would increase your "reward level" immediately from $300 to $320. Additional referrals would increment accordingly. You do not need your referrals to be successful to collect, only yourself as you note. Certainly it would be nice to see others win other people's money for a good cause too.

1)It sounds as if this only pertains to people who have been disqualified.
2)If the disparaging remarks are true, is it possible for HealthyWage to have a successful action against the participant?

imbatman said:   It sure sounds like they're trying to violate the first amendment...
I'm no lawyer, but is it a violation of the first amendment if you voluntarily agree to the conditions? People sign non-disclosure & non-disparagement agreements all the time and those are legal.

V. Sour Grapes Clause
Note to participants: We wanted to explain the Sour Grapes Clause. We rarely disqualify participants, and it has happened for only two reasons: (1) fraud/cheating/unfair conduct and (2) very rarely, for not submitting weigh-ins. We sometimes find ourselves threatened by folks who have cheated. They sometimes say things like, "pay me or I will cause a social media raucous." The Sour Grapes Clause is designed to prevent that. We do not and will not use the Sour Grapes Clause for any other purpose.

source: http://www.healthywage.com/ten-percent-rules

BrodyInsurance,

People can read the entire Terms and Conditions and decide for themselves what it says.

My feeling is that the most restrictive sentences about what participants can or cannot do are the sentences that their lawyers will fall back on.

I don't think that the wording of this clause V, taken in its entirety, says that ONLY participants who were disqualified are not legally allowed to criticize the program. There are just too many sentences that say "participant agrees not to do x,y,z" and this means ALL participants, as far as I can see;
however, I understand that you are interpreting it differently and that you think the entire clause is only regarding disqualified participants.

===
Key parts of Clause V:

"Participant hereby covenants and agrees to keep sour grapes to himself/herself, and to be financially responsible for any damages caused to HealthyWage by the airing of participant’s sour grapes or any of the conduct described in this Sour Grapes Clause. This Sour Grapes Clause applies regardless of the reason for the sour grapes, and applies even when the Participant was disqualified by HealthyWage for a rules violation, whether the violation was caused by the Participant or by someone else, and whether the Participant agrees with HealthyWage's ruling or not. Participant covenants and agrees that he/she will not say anything disparaging about HealthyWage via any means, including electronic media (including but not limited to email, Twitter and Facebook), written media (including but not limited to letters, press and advertisements), and spoken word, for two years following the end of the challenge. This includes all disparaging remarks whether true or false. Participant understands that sour grapes can cause serious damage to HealthyWage and Participant hereby agrees to be financially responsible for such damages and to pay any and all legal costs and fees, including attorneys fees, that HealthyWage incurs in any successful action against the Participant for violating this clause, even if HealthyWage's damages are small. Participant agrees that the word “disparagement,” as used in this section, shall be construed very broadly."

---
Even if your interpretation were correct, I still see a lot of problems with that sort of heavy-handed clampdown.

If all customers who are unhappy with any other service would not be allowed to say anything to anyone for 2 years about their bad experience, even if their complaint is TRUE (which is what this clause V says - it covers real grievances that are legitimate and true), then how would consumers ever be able to decide wisely on how they spend their time and money?

For example, Comcast cable company this week is attracting a lot of angry customer discussion, even on their own forum on their own website, over their deceptive practices about billing -- and many customers are dropping them as their tv broadcast provider. If all customers who were upset with Comcast were prevented from saying ANYTHING for 2 years about Comcast's behavior and the broken promises etc. that they experienced, then it would be a very unfair marketplace.

It would be a dictatorship of the monopolies. And that's not a good system, not good for anyone. Fair, open competition is the name of the game, it's the real American way.

NantucketSunrise said:   BrodyInsurance,

People can read the entire Terms and Conditions and decide for themselves what it says.

My feeling is that the most restrictive sentences about what participants can or cannot do are the sentences that their lawyers will fall back on.

I don't think that the wording of this clause V, taken in its entirety, says that ONLY participants who were disqualified are not legally allowed to criticize the program. There are just too many sentences that say "participant agrees not to do x,y,z" and this means ALL participants, as far as I can see;
however, I understand that you are interpreting it differently and that you think the entire clause is only regarding disqualified participants.

===
Key parts of Clause V:

"Participant hereby covenants and agrees to keep sour grapes to himself/herself, and to be financially responsible for any damages caused to HealthyWage by the airing of participant’s sour grapes or any of the conduct described in this Sour Grapes Clause. This Sour Grapes Clause applies regardless of the reason for the sour grapes, and applies even when the Participant was disqualified by HealthyWage for a rules violation, whether the violation was caused by the Participant or by someone else, and whether the Participant agrees with HealthyWage's ruling or not. Participant covenants and agrees that he/she will not say anything disparaging about HealthyWage via any means, including electronic media (including but not limited to email, Twitter and Facebook), written media (including but not limited to letters, press and advertisements), and spoken word, for two years following the end of the challenge. This includes all disparaging remarks whether true or false. Participant understands that sour grapes can cause serious damage to HealthyWage and Participant hereby agrees to be financially responsible for such damages and to pay any and all legal costs and fees, including attorneys fees, that HealthyWage incurs in any successful action against the Participant for violating this clause, even if HealthyWage's damages are small. Participant agrees that the word “disparagement,” as used in this section, shall be construed very broadly."

---
Even if your interpretation were correct, I still see a lot of problems with that sort of heavy-handed clampdown.

If all customers who are unhappy with any other service would not be allowed to say anything to anyone for 2 years about their bad experience, even if their complaint is TRUE (which is what this clause V says - it covers real grievances that are legitimate and true), then how would consumers ever be able to decide wisely on how they spend their time and money?

For example, Comcast cable company this week is attracting a lot of angry customer discussion, even on their own forum on their own website, over their deceptive practices about billing -- and many customers are dropping them as their tv broadcast provider. If all customers who were upset with Comcast were prevented from saying ANYTHING for 2 years about Comcast's behavior and the broken promises etc. that they experienced, then it would be a very unfair marketplace.

It would be a dictatorship of the monopolies. And that's not a good system, not good for anyone. Fair, open competition is the name of the game, it's the real American way.

It doesn't matter what their lawyers will fall back on. Their lawyers don't get to be the judge or jury.

If a non-disqualified participant goes to Facebook to complain, they are guilty of breaking the "Sour Grapes" clause. However, the "Sour Grapes" clause also states that HealthyWage won't go after them for breaking this clause. Healthywage appears to be in breach of their own contract if they go after someone for "sour grapes" who has not been disqualified.

PROTIP: The First Amendment does not apply to a corporation restricting your speech pursuant to contractual agreement.

Your arguments are invalid.