William Keep has openly expressed his disdain for multi-level marketing (MLM). His career has underscored his opposition to it. During the I2G trial, he was unable to identify a single MLM that lacked the characteristics of a pyramid scheme, referring to a diagram that depicted a pyramid—suggested to mirror I2G—as a “binary pyramid scheme structure.”
However, an expert is expected to maintain objectivity, which does not apply in William Keep’s case. A year after being hired by the government, he took to a blog to complain, stating, “The failure to bring charges against top distributors has been, in my view, a real weakness in the prosecution of pyramid schemes. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a few were successfully prosecuted, especially if it was a criminal prosecution by the DOJ.” This statement was made in January 2018, after his involvement in the I2G case.
After the trial, William Keep frequently visited an MLM critique blog, even attempting to make a donation. Notably, he admitted on the blog that I2G did not possess the characteristics of a “security.” He also took the opportunity to boast about his employment by the government in connection to the I2G case.
The fundamental unfairness of the I2G trial extended beyond the mere presence of an expert with anti-MLM views. The defendants were denied the opportunity to present their expert testimony just one day before the trial began. Similar to the FTC case against Neora, Keep relied on the same criticisms presented by the FTC expert. Fortunately, Neora was allowed to have its own expert testify, and after considering both experts, the Neora Court concluded that the FTC expert’s rigid opinions were not “based in reality.” In clearing Neora of pyramid scheme charges, the Neora Court afforded every consideration to Neora, which was denied to the I2G defendants. The basis for classifying I2G as a pyramid scheme relied solely on Keep’s analysis, which was flawed and based on tainted and “filtered” false data. This represents a miscarriage of justice, as the I2G defendants were not given any opportunity with an expert of their own to defend against Keep’s biased assertions.