The main Scentsy lawsuit active right now is Wenning v. Scentsy, Inc., a proposed class action filed in 2025 in federal court in California by former consultants who say the company misclassified them as independent contractors and owes them wages, overtime, and expense reimbursement. Scentsy is also facing separate, non-court scrutiny over misleading income claims made by its salesforce on social media.
The Wenning Class Action
The case, Wenning et al. v. Scentsy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-04936), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action and PAGA Complaint on July 14, 2025, bringing claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act alongside the class allegations.1PACER Monitor. Wenning et al v. Scentsy, Inc. et al
Alongside the company itself, the complaint names CEO Dan Orchard, co-founders Heidi and Orville Thompson, and other executives. The theory of the case is that Scentsy treats its consultants as employees in practice while labeling them independent contractors, which the plaintiffs say lets the company avoid California labor obligations including minimum wage, overtime, and expense reimbursement.2PACER Monitor. Answer to Amended Complaint, Wenning v. Scentsy
Scentsy, represented by Fisher & Phillips LLP, answered the amended complaint on August 11, 2025. The parties appeared before Judge Edward M. Chen for an initial Case Management Conference on May 5, 2026, and have since engaged in mediation, with joint status reports filed in February and March 2026. No class certification ruling has issued. The next Case Management Conference is set for November 17, 2026.1PACER Monitor. Wenning et al v. Scentsy, Inc. et al
Why California Classification Law Drives the Case
California’s ABC test, codified by Assembly Bill 5 in 2020, presumes a worker is an employee unless the company proves three things: the worker is free from the company’s control, performs work outside the company’s usual business, and is independently established in that line of work.3California Department of Industrial Relations. Independent Contractor Versus Employee
There is a narrower path for direct sellers. California law exempts “certain direct salespersons” from the ABC test and sends them to the older, more flexible Borello analysis, which weighs factors like the company’s right to control how the work is done, the permanence of the arrangement, and whether the worker has a real opportunity for profit or loss. Whether Scentsy’s consultants qualify for that exemption at all, and whether the relationship passes Borello if they do, will likely be central to the dispute.3California Department of Industrial Relations. Independent Contractor Versus Employee
The exposure is not trivial. Willful misclassification in California carries civil fines of $5,000 to $25,000 per violation, in addition to unpaid wages, overtime, and benefits owed to anyone found to have been an employee.3California Department of Industrial Relations. Independent Contractor Versus Employee
A Pattern Across Direct Selling Companies
Scentsy is not the first direct-sales company to face this argument. A proposed class of Rodan + Fields consultants, represented by the same legal team, reached an $8 million settlement in Dann v. The Rodan + Fields Company in San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. CGC-24-612800). That settlement received preliminary approval and covers consultants classified as independent contractors between March 2020 and June 2025, with roughly $4.5 million of the gross estimated to reach class members after fees and costs.4Rodan + Fields. Dann v. The Rodan + Fields Company, Settlement Notice Similar class complaints have been filed against Beachbody and Herbalife.
The DSSRC Income-Claims Inquiry
Separate from the court case, the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council, administered by BBB National Programs, opened a monitoring inquiry into income claims made by Scentsy’s salesforce on social media. Announced in January 2026, the inquiry reviewed 12 posts across Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Pinterest.5BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case: Scentsy
The flagged posts promised “financial freedom,” “unlimited income potential,” and “full-time income,” and some included screenshots of specific pay amounts such as $2,785.61 in a single month or a $1,000 bonus. One consultant said she had moved to another state and supported herself entirely on Scentsy income after a divorce. The DSSRC found the posts created a misleading impression that a typical consultant could earn significant or career-level income.5BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case: Scentsy
Scentsy cooperated. The company contacted the consultants, removed six posts, modified five, and terminated the account of a consultant who did not respond. Even so, the DSSRC concluded that four of the modified posts were still inadequate because they qualified earnings claims only by linking to Scentsy’s Income Disclosure Statement. Under FTC guidance, the council said, earnings disclosures must be “unavoidable” and placed directly alongside the claim rather than hidden behind a hyperlink or “more” button.5BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case: Scentsy
The DSSRC also noted that even a claim as modest as $50 per week, roughly $2,600 a year, “appears to be substantially higher than the average or median annual earnings of a typical Scentsy salesforce member.” Scentsy said it was “actively working to address the concerns” and agreed to the recommendations. The case closed on December 4, 2025.6BBB National Programs. DSSRC Newsroom Decision: Scentsy
FTC Notice and TINA.org Findings
The Federal Trade Commission has not brought a formal enforcement case against Scentsy, but in October 2021 it sent the company a Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities. The notice formally warned Scentsy that misrepresenting earnings as typical, or failing to disclose conditions that affect income, is an unfair or deceptive practice. Notices of this kind put a company on record and can increase penalties if violations are later proven.7Truth in Advertising. Scentsy
The consumer advocacy group Truth in Advertising (TINA.org) has reviewed Scentsy twice. In 2017, as part of a wider look at Direct Selling Association members, TINA.org notified Scentsy that it had identified “false and unsubstantiated income claims.” A second investigation in mid-2023, covering 100 MLM companies, again found atypical income claims being used to market the Scentsy opportunity, with problematic posts by distributors across Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Pinterest, and company blogs.7Truth in Advertising. Scentsy8Truth in Advertising. 2023 Scentsy Income Claims Database Across the broader 2023 review, TINA.org said 98% of the MLM companies it examined used misleading income representations.
What Scentsy Consultants Actually Earn
The scrutiny over income claims makes more sense next to the underlying numbers. According to 2015 figures from Scentsy’s Income Disclosure Statement, median annual earnings for a “Certified Consultant” were $676. At the “Superstar Consultant” level, median annual earnings were $7,815. The top tier, 196 “Superstar Directors,” averaged $219,313, but that group was a sliver of the roughly 60,000 consultants who reported earnings.9Nav. How Much Can You Really Make Selling Scentsy
Under the current compensation structure, consultants start at a 20% commission on their first 1,000 points of lifetime Personal Retail Volume, rising to 25% after that. A 5% bonus is available if monthly sales exceed 2,000 PRV, raised to 2,500 PRV as of April 2025. Starter kits run from $9 for the “Smart Start” option to $99 for the “Signature” kit.10Scentsy. Join Scentsy
Effective April 1, 2025, Scentsy also raised the monthly sales requirement for “active” status from 200 PRV to 250 PRV and eliminated the “Certified Consultant” rank that had let consultants lock in a permanent 25% rate. CEO Dan Orchard framed the changes as a way to “build momentum.” As of late 2024, about 25% of consultants were classified as active.11Idaho News. Scentsy Cuts About 11% of Workforce in Latest Restructuring
Earlier Lawsuits Where Scentsy Was the Plaintiff
Not every Scentsy lawsuit is about the company’s own conduct. In December 2008, Scentsy sued Performance Manufacturing, Inc., Rimports, LLC, and individuals including Jeffery W. Palmer in federal court in Idaho (Case No. 1:08-cv-00553), alleging that Rimports’ “ScentSationals” line copied Scentsy’s trade dress and copyrighted warmer designs, and that Palmer had visited the Meridian plant under false pretenses to access trade secrets.12GovInfo. Scentsy, Inc. v. Performance Manufacturing, Inc. A February 2009 ruling denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and found Scentsy had shown a “likelihood of success on the merits” of its trade dress claim, calling the products “strikingly similar in color, shape, size, and texture.” The case was voluntarily dismissed in May 2010, with terms not disclosed.13CourtListener. Scentsy, Inc. v. Performance Manufacturing, Inc.
In January 2013, Scentsy filed a trademark suit against Michelle Sanderson, whose Iowa-based apparel line used phrases like “Join the Scentsation” and “ask me about joining my scents family.” The case (1:13-cv-00015, Idaho District Court) was terminated within nine days of filing.14Idaho Business Review. Scentsy Files Flurry of Court Documents to Protect Brand Name15PACER Monitor. Scentsy, Inc. et al v. Sanderson Those older matters are closed and do not involve consumer or consultant claims against the company.