In 2020 and 2021, The Bountiful Company (owned by Nestle) orchestrated a deceptive strategy on Amazon.com that, according to legal documents from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), artificially inflated consumer perceptions of several Bountiful dietary supplements. By piggybacking on older products’ higher ratings and positive reviews, these newer products “borrowed” star averages, total review counts, “#1 Best Seller” tags, and even “Amazon’s Choice” badges. In doing so, Bountiful (as alleged by the FTC) misled consumers into believing thousands of satisfied buyers had personally endorsed these newly launched or weaker-selling supplements when in fact reviews for older, different formulations were displayed for the new or unpopular ones.

This manipulation—documented in the FTC complaint—strikes at the heart of consumer trust in ratings and reviews on one of the world’s largest e-commerce platforms, Amazon.

No longer were potential buyers seeing a transparent account of how a new product fared in the market. Instead, the new listing was effectively cloaked in the prestige of an older product’s glowing reputation. One Bountiful employee succinctly expressed the tactic, describing how they got “creative” because the new items were “NOT selling,” and that they used “variations to give them a little boost” in ratings.

Below, we present an eight-part, in-depth investigative article that explores these allegations, contextualizes them against the larger backdrop of neoliberal capitalism, and addresses the profound implications for consumers, local communities, regulators, and the broader marketplace.

1. Introduction

In a time where we consumers rely heavily on online ratings and reviews to guide their purchasing decisions, trust is currency. Online marketplaces such as Amazon are built on this premise, with billions of individual star ratings, written reviews, and best-seller tags signifying which products consumers love—and which they do not. Yet, as the FTC’s recently filed complaint against The Bountiful Company reveals, the digital reputations that companies create can be skewed, manipulated, or outright fabricated.

The Bountiful Company is an established manufacturer and vendor of vitamins, minerals, and supplements, including well-known brands such as Nature’s Bounty and Sundown. According to the FTC, Bountiful sought to boost the perceived popularity of new or poorly performing dietary supplements by combining their product listings (“variating” them) with established high-performing listings on Amazon.com—products with robust review histories and #1 Best Seller badges. When these listings were linked, unsuspecting consumers visiting the page of a new, untested product would see thousands of favorable reviews that were actually written for a completely different item.

At the core of these allegations is the claim that Bountiful exploited Amazon’s “variation relationship” tool. This tool is supposed to help consumers compare different versions of the same product—say, the same T-shirt in blue, green, and gray, or the same vitamin sold in 100-count and 200-count bottles. But, as the complaint alleges, Bountiful applied it to entirely different formulations: a zinc gummy, for instance, might be paired with a popular zinc tablet that already boasted thousands of five-star reviews. Suddenly, that brand-new gummy—launched to zero consumer feedback—would “inherit” the older product’s star rating and “Amazon’s Choice” badge.

This introduction lays out the central controversies. But the deeper story delves into broader systemic issues: the pressures of today’s corporate environment, short-term profit maximization, a relentless drive for top-line growth, and minimal oversight by regulators. These issues occur within the macro context of neoliberal capitalism, where corporate ethics, consumer advocacy, and social justice too often recede behind shareholder profits.

In the sections that follow, we examine The Bountiful Company’s alleged misconduct in eight structured parts. We will chart how corporate motivations met an under-monitored Amazon ecosystem, how Bountiful allegedly subverted consumers’ trust, and what this reveals about the deeper architecture of profit-driven wrongdoing in the global marketplace.

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

“We got creative,” reads an email from a Bountiful director around August 2020, as cited by the FTC complaint. The impetus was apparently straightforward: new products were floundering, hampered by a lack of sales and poor or nonexistent consumer feedback. Rather than invest in slow, organic growth—through transparent marketing or simply waiting for honest customer reviews to accumulate—the allegations show that Bountiful’s staff found a more expedient route.

By forging variation relationships between old and new products, these new items appeared to have thousands of four- and five-star reviews on day one. Multiple examples described in the complaint illustrate the pattern. For instance:

  • Nature’s Bounty Stress Comfort Fast Acting Calm Chewable Tablets allegedly got piggybacked onto a strong-selling, top-rated Anxiety & Stress Relief Ashwagandha formula. Almost instantly, the new product boasted thousands of shared reviews and a strong star average, overshadowing the meager reality that fewer than a dozen consumers had actually reviewed the product.
  • Nature’s Bounty Immune 24 Hour+ Softgels were linked to a best-selling, well-reviewed vitamin C product—one that had garnered tens of thousands of ratings over the course of its presence in the market. Overnight, the new 24 Hour+ Softgels appeared similarly adored by tens of thousands of satisfied consumers. The complaint notes that once Bountiful ended this variation relationship, the new softgels’ rating count plummeted from over 40,000 to around 2,700.

Such alleged manipulation goes beyond typical marketing spin. At its most basic level, it confuses—and arguably deceives—consumers. Shoppers might rightly assume a new supplement with 4.5 stars and thousands of reviews has a proven track record. If it even displays a prestigious “#1 Best Seller” or “Amazon’s Choice” badge, that places it at the top of the consumer’s mental shortlist. But these illusions, as laid out in the FTC complaint, reflect a corporate intent to inflate the new product’s reputation artificially.

In many ways, Bountiful’s alleged strategy exemplifies a broader phenomenon under corporate capitalism: the drive to achieve immediate results—whether in sales volumes, brand ranking, or shareholder returns—often trumps ethics or a measured, evidence-based approach. Instead of waiting for real reviews to trickle in or acknowledging that a product might need R&D improvements, the short-term profit motive can lead to questionable tactics. This is not necessarily a new story, but the Amazon example provides a real-time blueprint of how a modern company can harness e-commerce’s hidden levers to shape consumer perceptions.

Behind all the marketing jargon, the core allegations speak to a fundamental betrayal of consumer trust. One might call it an “engineering of consent” via manipulated user feedback. It is an instance in which corporate accountability is placed squarely under scrutiny, highlighting the lengths to which a firm might go when regulators are not watching.

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

For Amazon, the concept of a “variation relationship” was presumably intended for consumer convenience. If you’re shopping for a brand of vitamin D in different pill counts, or if you want the same calcium supplement in either 100 or 200 tablets, you shouldn’t have to open multiple listings to read essentially the same user reviews. Instead, you can simply select the variant (bottle size, flavor, quantity) on the same page. The star rating and reviews remain the same since it’s essentially the same product.

However, the complaint describes how Bountiful’s staff recognized that Amazon’s variation mechanism was ripe for exploitation. Instead of limiting the practice to identical or near-identical formulations, Bountiful allegedly linked products with fundamentally different formulas or with disparate ingredient lists. By Amazon’s rules, that is disallowed: the policy states that only substantially similar items—differing slightly in color, size, count, or flavor—can be “variated.”

  • Zinc Gummies vs. Zinc Caplets: The latter was an established #1 best seller with thousands of glowing reviews. The new gummies had no track record. But a request to Amazon from Bountiful in August 2020 combined the two, effectively “borrowing” the older product’s high rating and best-seller status.
  • Sundown Kids Vitamin C Gummies vs. Sundown Kids Disney and Pixar Toy Story 4 Multivitamin Gummies: The complaint shows that these two distinct children’s supplements were put in the same listing. Suddenly, the brand-new Vitamin C gummies brandished thousands of positive reviews mostly left for the well-established multivitamin gummies.

To the casual observer, a gummy might appear no different from a tablet, or a “Stress Comfort” product might seem akin to “Anxiety & Stress Relief.” Yet the core difference is that the second item often had no proven credibility. By piggybacking, it spontaneously gained a veneer of consumer acclaim.

Why wasn’t this caught earlier? The Amazon marketplace is vast and notoriously difficult to monitor. Amazon does have guidelines and systems that might flag suspicious variation requests, but it also allows large vendors like Bountiful to submit hundreds or thousands of listing changes. Unless the variations are egregiously off base or flagged by an internal algorithm, they can slip through. Meanwhile, an unsuspecting shopper sees a new product with, say, “14,000 ratings” and an average 4.5-star rating.

On top of Amazon’s scale, there is a deeper factor: many large e-commerce platforms operate with a principle of “move fast and break things.” For companies, as the allegations suggest, the pressure to deliver immediate growth can overshadow any moral or legal hesitations. Once a product has hijacked an older listing’s star rating, it can shoot up in search results, further fueling sales and capturing Amazon’s coveted best-seller labels.

Thus, the “corporate playbook,” as alleged, was to:

  1. Identify new or poorly selling supplements.
  2. Pair them with top performers under the superficial cover of a “variation” relationship.
  3. Reap immediate “borrowed” credibility, leading to a spike in sales and brand prominence.
  4. Quietly revert the listing later if necessary, once the new product has garnered some real consumer reviews or attained a foothold in the rankings.

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

“Did it pay off?” The email trail in the FTC complaint strongly suggests so. The Bountiful director in charge of e-commerce saw spikes in sales whenever a new product was combined with an older product’s listing. A new vitamin launched “during Covid” with little traction could suddenly appear to thousands of prospective Amazon shoppers as a proven staple with excellent reviews.

In a neoliberal capitalist framework, the logic is straightforward: if there is a technique—questionable or not—that yields a near-immediate bump in revenue, it can be tempting. The period in question, 2020-2021, was also a time of massive pandemic-driven e-commerce expansion and heightened consumer attention on supplements. Demand soared as consumers worried about immunity, stress, and overall health. It was prime time for profit-seeking via the quick inflations of star ratings.

When a consumer sees a “4.5 out of 5 stars” rating with tens of thousands of reviews, the typical assumption is that a wide cross-section of people have tested and approved of the product. That consumer then feels safer making a purchase, particularly if an “Amazon’s Choice” or “#1 Best Seller” badge is attached. This synergy of star ratings and badges has an outsized effect on purchasing decisions. One reason:

  • It shortens the buyer’s research: A shopper sees “12,000 ratings” and an average 4.5 star score, concluding the product must be well-established and widely endorsed.
  • It fosters a bandwagon effect: People assume “everyone else” has tried it and liked it, so it must be good.
  • It cements brand reputation: Over time, brand recall and perceived quality become anchored in that star rating, making future marketing easier and reinforcing brand equity.

Profit and shareholder pressure: Bountiful’s impetus might also have included pressure from corporate leadership or shareholders to demonstrate growth. Launching new supplements is inherently risky—some formulas may never find a stable audience. By artificially hitching them to proven winners, one can jumpstart the new product’s success. The complaint’s details highlight how quickly employees realized the significant payoff.

Potential cost-benefit analysis: In the bigger scheme of corporate accountability, if the internal logic was, “We’ll do it until we get caught,” it reveals how minimal the expected penalty might be compared to the windfall from surging sales. This cost-benefit mindset thrives when oversight is weak or the perceived risk of detection is low. The alleged conduct endured for well over a year before culminating in FTC action, indicating that even large, recognized brands can operate under the assumption that e-commerce manipulations will slip under the radar.

Meanwhile, the intangible costs to consumers are real. People who purchased these newly “hyped” products might have ended up with supplements that were not as effective or well-reviewed as the listing suggested. Additionally, smaller supplement brands that lack the resources or cunning to game Amazon’s system would find themselves at a steep disadvantage. The wealth disparity, in that sense, grows: a large company can afford to dedicate staff to “creative listing strategies,” fueling bigger profits, while smaller entrants struggle to be seen.

And with LLMs like ChatGPT and Deepseek at the advanced stage that they’re at, it’s entirely probable that a good chunk of the glowing reviews for random ass Amazon products were just AI generated.

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

The FTC complaint suggests that for many months, these questionable variation relationships were established, re-established, and only occasionally taken down. Amazon presumably has rules that forbid pairing dissimilar products, yet the volume of product listings is so vast that a cunning brand can slip such changes through.

Regulatory bodies like the FTC focus on many forms of consumer protection, but historically, the question of e-commerce listing manipulations was not at the top of their docket. The Commission has limited resources and invests them where consumer harm is either large or very clearly documented. Bountiful’s alleged manipulation may have been overshadowed by other pressing policy concerns—until, presumably, enough evidence and patterns emerged for a formal complaint.

In a neoliberal environment, we often see regulatory capture or, at the very least, insufficient regulator bandwidth. Amazon itself is not primarily a regulator; it’s a private platform with its own business imperatives. Though it attempts to police reviews, it also might not act as aggressively against big vendors if those vendors drive a great deal of sales volume. Or, if Amazon simply had not seen the clear evidence.

Moreover, consumer advocacy groups, underfunded and fragmented, face an uphill battle in systematically monitoring e-commerce listings. They might spot-check certain products or respond to consumer complaints, but the complexity of Amazon’s ecosystem can mask patterns of wrongdoing—until it becomes impossible to ignore.

The lesson: Bountiful’s alleged success in pulling off these questionable listing merges hints at a broader, systemic gap in digital oversight. If the largest e-commerce platform can be gamed for over a year by a well-known supplement brand without immediate consequences, there’s reason to suspect that many other brands are employing similarly dubious tactics.

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Zooming out, it’s tempting to call this an isolated breach of corporate ethics. But as we explore corporate accountability under neoliberal capitalism, a pattern emerges:

  • Corporate ethics can get sidelined when the focus is on short-term wins, quick market share grabs, or boosting quarterly sales.
  • The “gray area” of e-commerce is large. Variation listings, SEO manipulations, orchestrated user reviews—these are part of an entire arsenal that companies can deploy for a competitive edge.

Within this framework, the Bountiful allegations do not appear as a bizarre anomaly but as a predictable outcome of an intensely profit-driven environment. Large companies have a toolkit of growth hacks, PR spins, and borderline tactics designed to outcompete rivals, capture consumer attention, and please investors.

Parallels in other industries: The same phenomenon occurs in everything from finance to pharmaceuticals—when immediate gains overshadow ethical lines. Think of “greenwashing” in heavy industries, where firms make unverified claims about environmental responsibility. Or consider data privacy controversies in tech, where user data is sometimes exploited for micro-targeted advertising without transparent user consent. The common denominator is the potential to mislead or confuse the public in service of maximizing returns. More information on these acts of corporate misconduct can be found by visiting the links at the bottom of this article.

Consumer perspective: If repeated across enough brands and categories, it undermines faith in the entire rating system. If many new products are inheriting “borrowed” five-star reputations, that basic tool—product reviews—ceases to be reliably truthful. This fosters cynicism and might push consumers to discount all reviews, punishing honest smaller sellers as well.

So, we might say the system is not “broken”—it’s working precisely as a system geared to maximize corporate profit with minimal friction. Unless external regulators or robust internal checks intervene, manipulations like these are apt to flourish.

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When allegations of corporate wrongdoing surface—especially if they revolve around consumer-facing deception—companies typically turn to a well-worn “PR Playbook.” Historically, after lawsuits or complaints, the following steps are often observed:

  1. Denial or Minimization: A brand might initially claim that any wrongdoing was unintentional or “a mistake,” or they might blame it on a “rogue employee.”
  2. Polite Apology (If Absolutely Necessary): A statement might read, “We apologize for any confusion,” while carefully avoiding an admission of guilt. The brand emphasizes its commitment to “customer satisfaction and compliance.”
  3. Vague Promises of Reform: The statement might announce new “internal guidelines” or “compliance measures,” but specifics remain undisclosed.
  4. Shift the Narrative: The company tries to reorient public attention to philanthropic efforts, new product launches, or partnerships.

Given Bountiful’s size and track record in the supplement market, one could expect a measured approach if and when they respond publicly: emphasizing that they remain a “trusted leader,” that any variation merges were done to “streamline the customer experience,” and that they “will cooperate fully with the FTC.” Indeed, statements from Bountiful, if any are made public, would likely highlight how the matter has been “resolved” or how they are “continuing to improve compliance.”

Broader industry patterns: We have seen similar damage control tactics across big corporate controversies—like major banks post-financial-crisis or large polluters revealing token environmental pledges. The rhetorical structure seldom changes: a dash of contrition, a vow to do better, a pivot to safer topics.

However, critics note that such PR moves rarely address the root cause: the underlying incentive structure that rewards revenue spikes and punishes slow organic growth. Without fundamental changes to how success is measured and regulated, the impetus to manipulate remains.

Potential reputational fallout: If consumers become deeply aware that a leading brand gamed Amazon’s rating system, the brand’s reputation could suffer. But in practice, many big corporations weather these storms—especially if the product is not associated with immediate health hazards or catastrophic harm. The scandal might fade, overshadowed by the next news cycle.

In short, the PR playbook aims to contain the crisis and ensure that, over the long haul, the brand emerges with minimal damage to sales. For Bountiful, this moment is critical: the supplement market thrives on trust. If a brand’s reviews are proven untrustworthy, the damage could linger—unless the consumer conversation quickly shifts, or other controversies overshadow it.

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

The alleged Bountiful episode exemplifies an enduring tension: large corporations wield substantial power in shaping public perception, often overshadowing the voices and well-being of everyday consumers. The entire modern economy relies on star ratings and reviews; they are the community’s best stand-in for real-world word-of-mouth. When that system is manipulated, consumers lose a crucial safeguard.

Public health ramifications: While the immediate story is about star ratings, the products involved are dietary supplements—pills, gummies, capsules that people ingest for better health. The stakes are arguably higher than if these were phone accessories or T-shirts. If a consumer trusts a supplement’s rating only to find it yields no benefit, that can undermine not just their finances but also, in some cases, their sense of well-being. There is no direct allegation in the FTC complaint that these Bountiful products were unsafe or harmful, but the potential for real public-health confusion is undeniable.

Socioeconomic impact: In local communities, the proliferation of uncertainly rated supplements can contribute to disillusionment, especially for those struggling with health issues. They see “thousands of people loved this” and spend money they might not otherwise have parted with. Meanwhile, consumer advocacy groups or healthcare providers find it more challenging to give reliable guidance if the review system is corrupted.

Systemic solutions: The bigger question is how to address these issues under the current economic system. If the pursuit of profit remains primary, can we rely on corporate social responsibility or voluntary internal ethics? Or must regulators step in more aggressively, imposing routine audits and punitive fines that exceed the profits gleaned from misconduct?

  • Some critics suggest that the real solution is to strengthen the role of third-party watchdogs and consumer advocacy organizations.
  • Others argue that Amazon must significantly bolster its internal compliance, potentially running random checks to ensure variation merges are legitimate.
  • Still others urge a more fundamental shift—de-emphasizing star ratings altogether or building a more rigorous verification process for each separate SKU or formula.

Neoliberal capitalism: In a system that prizes minimal oversight and maximum freedom for corporate growth, the impetus to cheat can be intense. Many point out that unless the penalties for wrongdoing surpass the potential profits, episodes like Bountiful’s alleged listing manipulations will continue. Meanwhile, consumers might remain in the dark, unknowingly purchasing items based on conflated or fraudulent reviews.

Yet, stories like these also galvanize public interest and can spark a wave of consumer activism, at least momentarily. As the story circulates, some Amazon shoppers might become more skeptical. They might check which specific version a review references, or they might read negative reviews more carefully.

In the end: Bountiful’s alleged manipulations show that trust, once shattered, is tough to restore. It is not simply about an Amazon listing. It is about the ethics of a major supplement brand allegedly misrepresenting consumer sentiment. It also evokes a deeper question about whether a market system primarily focused on short-term gains can deliver genuine transparency, especially in fields that revolve around health and well-being.

Rebuilding Trust in the Wake of Deception

At stake are consumer trust, the reliability of e-commerce star ratings, and the fundamental credibility of a multi-billion-dollar supplement industry.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Alleged Deceptive Listing Practices: By merging fundamentally different products on Amazon, Bountiful is said to have misrepresented the authenticity of reviews, star ratings, and best-seller or Amazon’s Choice labels.
  2. Profit-Driven Motives: Profits can very quickly drive otherwise ethical employees to do unethical chicanery
  3. Systemic Regulatory Gaps: This saga reveals how a major player might exploit the scale of Amazon’s marketplace amid minimal external scrutiny. It underscores the complexity of regulating online commerce in an era dominated by user-generated reviews.
  4. Broader Patterns: The alleged tactics reflect a larger theme of corporate corruption, corporate greed, and the dangers of unbridled neoliberal capitalism—where short-term profit often eclipses corporate ethics.
  5. Consumer Harm: Although the product details do not imply immediate physical harm, the intangible harm to consumers’ pocketbooks and trust is considerable. Health-conscious customers rely heavily on genuine reviews when choosing supplements.

Whether the final outcome is a legal settlement, fine, or a reconfiguration of Bountiful’s approach, the story transcends a single lawsuit. It illuminates the tension between corporate power and public interest, and how easily wealth disparity widens when big businesses manipulate digital platforms at scale.

Looking Forward: For consumers, the practical lesson may be to approach e-commerce reviews with a more critical eye. Confirm that a product’s reviews match the exact variation in question, read negative feedback, and watch for signs that a listing was recently changed. For regulators, the Bountiful case underscores an urgent need for robust oversight and stiffer penalties to deter future manipulations that exploit consumer trust.

In the broader sense, if we wish to preserve the integrity of “the wisdom of the crowd,” platforms, regulators, and consumers must align to demand transparency. Otherwise, the star rating system that so many rely on may well become a meaningless façade—showing not the honest reflections of real customers, but the cunning illusions of corporate marketing departments bent on maximizing profit at all costs.

The Road Ahead

In the wake of these revelations, public discourse around corporate accountability, particularly in the dietary supplement sector, may intensify. Skepticism about product claims, doubts about the sincerity of corporate social responsibility initiatives, and heightened calls for regulatory action can converge into a powerful impetus for change. While Bountiful’s future statements and legal outcomes remain to be seen, the complaint’s details offer a sobering reminder of how easily trust can be commodified—and how swiftly those illusions can unravel once regulators and advocacy groups bring hidden tactics to light.

Only with a mix of consumer vigilance, platform-level diligence, and robust regulatory oversight can the marketplace restore genuine credibility to its rating systems. Whether that trifecta emerges, or whether corporate greed will continue subverting transparency under the structures of neoliberal capitalism, is the open question that remains.

The-Bountiful-Company-complaint-final-consent-without-signaturesDownload
  • Product Safety Violations – Corporations cutting costs at the expense of consumer safety: Read more
  • Environmental Violations – Companies polluting ecosystems to maximize profits: Read more
  • Labor Exploitation – Unsafe conditions, wage theft, and worker mistreatment: Read more
  • Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses – Mishandling personal data, disregarding security, and exploiting user privacy: Read more
  • Financial Fraud & Corruption – Manipulated records, misleading investors, and illicit wealth accumulation: Read more
  • Misleading Marketing – False advertising, deceptive claims, and hidden product risks: Read more
  • Other Corporate Misconduct – Cases that don’t fit neatly into a single category: Read more