The lawsuit between Bravenly and Plexus was a federal case filed by Plexus Worldwide against rival direct-sales company Bravenly Global and its co-founder Aspen Emry in December 2023, and it ended roughly five months later in a confidential settlement and a dismissal with prejudice. Plexus, an Arizona-based multilevel marketing company, brought the action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Judge Steven D. Merryday signed the final dismissal order on May 20, 2024.1PACER Monitor. Plexus Worldwide LLC v Bravenly Global LLC et al
What Plexus Alleged
The complaint itself is not publicly available in the research, so the specific factual allegations are not on the record. The dispute fits the framework Plexus uses in its distributor contracts. Plexus sells nutritional supplements and personal care products through independent distributors it calls Brand Ambassadors, and those agreements contain non-solicitation clauses that bar Brand Ambassadors from recruiting other Plexus distributors into competing direct-sales companies during the contract and for one year after leaving. The same agreements treat downline contact lists and distributor profiles as trade secrets that remain Plexus’s property after a distributor departs, and they characterize cross-company recruiting as “unreasonable and unjustified interference with the contractual relationship” and misappropriation of trade secrets. Plexus reserves the right to seek injunctive relief without bond for such violations.2Plexus Worldwide. Brand Ambassador Policies and Procedures
Bravenly Global is a Florida-based health-and-wellness direct-sales company co-founded by Aspen Emry, who has said she spent over 18 years in network marketing before launching it.3Bravenly Global. Meet Bravenly
How the Case Moved Through Court
Plexus filed its complaint on December 7, 2023, naming Bravenly Global and Aspen Emry as defendants (Case No. 8:23-cv-02793). It filed an amended complaint on February 5, 2024. The defendants responded on February 20 with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the amended complaint failed to state a claim. Plexus opposed that motion on March 12.1PACER Monitor. Plexus Worldwide LLC v Bravenly Global LLC et al
On February 20, the court granted a joint protective order shielding confidential business information exchanged in discovery. The next day, the court referred the case to mediation.1PACER Monitor. Plexus Worldwide LLC v Bravenly Global LLC et al The motion to dismiss was never decided on its merits.
How It Ended
The parties mediated on May 2, 2024, before mediator James R. Betts, who filed a report that same day stating the outcome was “Settled.” On May 7, Judge Merryday issued an order acknowledging the settlement under Local Rule 3.09(b), giving the parties 60 days to submit a final stipulated order or move to vacate, and denying the pending motion to dismiss as moot.1PACER Monitor. Plexus Worldwide LLC v Bravenly Global LLC et al
Plexus filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on May 17, 2024. Three days later, Judge Merryday signed the final order dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case.1PACER Monitor. Plexus Worldwide LLC v Bravenly Global LLC et al The financial terms and any other conditions of the settlement were not disclosed in the court record, and neither party has publicly revealed them. Because the dismissal was with prejudice, neither side can refile the same claims. As of 2026, no further litigation between the two companies has been reported.
Why These Fights Happen in MLM
Lawsuits between multilevel marketing companies over distributor recruitment recur across the industry. Companies invest heavily in building distributor networks and treat those networks as proprietary assets, which is why their contracts typically include non-solicitation provisions and treat downline data as trade secrets. Plexus’s contracts impose a one-year post-termination ban on cross-company recruiting.2Plexus Worldwide. Brand Ambassador Policies and Procedures Bravenly’s own Brand Partner policies mirror the norm, prohibiting solicitation of other Brand Partners into competing companies and restricting some competitive activity after departure.4Bravenly Global. Bravenly Policies and Procedures The enforceability of such clauses varies by jurisdiction; some state courts require a plaintiff to show an independently wrongful act before a tortious-interference claim can succeed.
Separate Regulatory Matters
Both companies have faced regulatory scrutiny over earnings claims made by their independent salesforces, but those matters are not connected to this lawsuit. The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council administratively closed an inquiry into Plexus in February 2025 after the company facilitated the removal or modification of distributor social media posts that overstated typical earnings, and Plexus had earlier received FTC Notices of Penalty Offenses in 2021 and 2023.5BBB National Programs. DSSRC Closure – Plexus6Truth in Advertising. Plexus Worldwide The DSSRC administratively closed a similar inquiry into Bravenly on February 24, 2026, after the company removed most of the flagged posts and reported new compliance training.7BBB National Programs. DSSRC Closure – Bravenly Global