All reviews
Home / Reviews / New U Life
Topical homeopathic wellness · Binary-core hybrid MLM

New U Life Corporation

A gel marketed as growth hormone whose own FDA-filed label declares a 30X dilution - and an FDA laboratory analysis in January 2019 found no meaningful growth hormone in it. No regulator has acted in the six-plus years since, and that absence is part of the file too.

Reviewed July 31, 2026 Founded Corporation registered April 2017; direct-selling launch 2017–2018, with first-year SomaDerm sales reported at approximately $60 million in a trade-press profile Confidence: Medium-High
D-GRADE
3.1/10
Weighted composite

PRODUCT INTEGRITY IS THE PROBLEM

The company’s own 2023 disclosure puts the average annual income across active distributors at $49.45, against roughly $1,560 a year of autoship required merely to stay commission-eligible - and the product at the center of it is labeled at a dilution that, on ordinary chemistry, retains no molecule of the substance it is named for.

The question you came with

Can you actually make money with New U Life?

NO No - not on the numbers this company publishes

No, and the product is the reason before the economics are. The label on the flagship gel declares "Somatropin 30X" - thirty successive one-in-ten dilutions, a factor of ten to the thirtieth, roughly a million-fold past the point at which a solution is statistically expected to hold one molecule of the original substance. An FDA Forensic Chemistry Center report on a January 2019 sample recorded no evidence for the presence of hGH above approximately 7 micrograms per gram. That is a laboratory finding inside an FDA document, not a warning letter, not a recall and not an adjudication. It is also exactly what the label says.

The economics come from the same paper trail. The company's own 2023 disclosure puts the average annual income across active distributors at $49.45, with no median published, and 99.44% of distributors sitting at the Associate rank averaging $1.05. Staying commission-eligible takes 140 PV inside a rolling five-week period, which in practice is autoshipping a bottle every five weeks: roughly $130 to $150 a month, about $1,560 a year, indefinitely. The required spend is around thirty-one times the average receipt, and that average is computed only across people still maintaining the volume.

Roughly half the payout is gated on sponsoring. Binary team commissions require 140 PV personally, or 280 at Coach and above, plus at least two personally sponsored active affiliates each generating 140 PV of their own. The unilevel matching bonus pays a percentage of downline binary commissions, so it sits behind the identical gate. A person who sells nothing but product to outside customers is structurally excluded from both streams at any volume. And the fast start pays the sponsor $20, $60 or $120 depending on which kit the recruit bought on the way in.

Two things cut the other way and belong on the page. The retail margins are real - $45 on a single non-autoship bottle, $25 on autoship, $520 on a forty-gel commercial order - so three outside sales a month covers the activity requirement for somebody who can genuinely find buyers. And no second monetisation layer is stacked on top: no mandatory training fees, no certification charges, no leadership-program costs and no ticketed event obligations could be located in any source reviewed. In this category that absence is worth more than it sounds.

What it costs to be in
$199

entry kit, with higher tiers reported at $499–$559 and $899–$999; then 140 PV every five weeks - roughly $130–$150 a month - to stay commission-eligible

What would have to change
  • Stop naming the product after a substance an FDA laboratory did not find in it. The 30X notation on the label and the January 2019 sample report say the same thing; the marketing says something else.
  • Publish a median beside the average. In a distribution where 99.44% of distributors average $1.05 and the top rank averages $295,790.25, a mean of $49.45 describes almost nobody in the field.
  • Ungate the binary from personally sponsoring two people. As drafted, a distributor who sells only to outside customers is shut out of roughly half the plan no matter how much they move.
  • Publish the exit and refund terms. The buyback percentage, the return window and the treatment of unopened inventory could not be verified anywhere, and the activity requirement generates a bottle every five weeks whether or not it sells.

That call is computed, not chosen - the rule reads three of the nine published dimension scores and is printed on the methodology page. It describes this company's plan and the figures it publishes about the people already in it. It is not a prediction about you, and nothing on this site is advice.

$49.45
Average annual income across active distributors
the company’s own 2023 disclosure; no median is published
99.44%
Of distributors sit at the Associate rank
where the disclosed average annual income is $1.05
30X
The labeled dilution of the named active ingredient
a 1-in-10^30 dilution - six orders of magnitude past Avogadro’s number
~$1,560
Annual autoship to stay commission-eligible
140 PV every five weeks, roughly thirty-one times the average income

Legal status

LEGAL - and the list of what has NOT been found is long enough that it has to come first. No court has found anything against New U Life. No FTC action, no FTC complaint, no consent order, no civil penalty. No FDA warning letter to the company could be located anywhere in the FDA warning-letter database, including its 2019 health-fraud compilation. No product recall, no seizure, no injunction. No pyramid-scheme finding by any government body. No class action and no state attorney general action was identified in any source reviewed. No criminal proceeding and no securities action against any principal. What does exist: an FDA Forensic Chemistry Center laboratory summary report, Sample No. 1026141, on a product tested in January 2019, finding no evidence of human growth hormone above approximately 7 micrograms per gram - a laboratory result recorded in an FDA document, not a warning letter, never sent to the company, and surfaced instead by a private watchdog; a March 2020 self-regulatory decision, DSSRC Case #16-2020, referring the company’s health and earnings claims to both the FTC and the FDA, which produced no visible federal enforcement in more than six years; an FTC closing letter of 5 August 2019 to the founder concerning a prior company, closing an inquiry with no enforcement action; unresolved internal-control litigation; and two defamation suits the company itself filed against critics, outcomes unverified. Every one of those is a stage, and none of them is an adjudication.

Confidence: Medium-High

Primary sources fetched directly where possible. Everything we could not verify is listed at the bottom of this page by name.

What this actually is

Follow the money

A California direct-selling company registered in April 2017 and launched into the field in 2017–2018, selling a topical gel called SomaDerm - marketed as delivering growth hormone transdermally without a prescription - plus an adjacent supplement line, through independent distributors on a binary team-commission core with unilevel matching bonuses layered over it.

Several things about it are better than the surrounding noise suggests and they belong first. It publishes a dated, named income disclosure at a stable public address, with a rank-by-rank table, which a large share of this category still does not. It is self-funded with no reported outside institutional investors, so there is no fund with an exit clock behind the growth targets. There is no second pay-to-play layer - no mandatory training fees, no certification charges, no event or ticket requirements were located anywhere. The binary carries a real anti-abuse cap at 417 cycles a week. The BBB file shows an A- grade with low absolute complaint volume for a company of this claimed scale. And the corporate language is, at the top of the house, comparatively careful: the product label carries the mandated homeopathic disclaimer verbatim and the company’s own FAQ states plainly that the product is not FDA approved.

Then the product. SomaDerm sells at a reported $169–$170 for a 96-gram bottle. Its own FDA-filed label lists the active ingredient as "Somatropin 30X" - a one-in-ten dilution repeated thirty times, a factor of 10^30, roughly a million-fold beyond Avogadro’s number, which is the point past which a solution is not statistically expected to retain a single molecule of what was diluted. An FDA Forensic Chemistry Center laboratory summary report, Sample No. 1026141, on a product tested in January 2019, recorded "no evidence for the presence of hGH at a level greater than approximately 7 micrograms per gram." That is a laboratory finding in an FDA document - obtained and published by a private watchdog, never issued to the company as a warning letter, never followed by a recall, a seizure, an injunction or any enforcement action in the years since. The absence is as material as the finding and this report states both.

And "FDA registered" is not "FDA approved," and neither is a national drug code listing. The product is listed in the FDA’s NDC directory under 61877-0007 in the marketing category "UNAPPROVED HOMEOPATHIC." An NDC listing is a self-reporting process by which a firm tells the FDA it makes or distributes something and self-assigns a code. There is no review, no testing and no authorization of any claim in it. The product’s own label says so: "This homeopathic product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for safety or efficacy. FDA is not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective." A private watchdog has documented dozens of instances of distributors using "FDA registered" and, in places, the flatly false "FDA approved."

The plan behind it gates roughly half its payout streams on headcount. Binary commissions - $40 a matched cycle at Promoter and Coordinator, $60 at Coach and above, on 600/400 PV matched cycles - require 140 PV personally and at least two personally sponsored active affiliates each doing 140 PV of their own. The unilevel matching bonus pays a share of downline binary commissions and so is gated behind the same condition. A distributor who only sells to outside customers is left with $45 on a single gel order and $25 on an autoship order. Staying commission-eligible at all costs 140 PV every five weeks - about $130 to $150 a month. The company’s own 2023 disclosure puts the average annual income across active distributors at $49.45, with 99.44% of them at the Associate rank averaging $1.05, and publishes no median.

Where distributors sat in the company’s own 2023 disclosure

New U Life’s published earnings summary. Percentages of distributors by rank; income figures are averages, not medians - no median is published. Business expenses are expressly not deducted, and the denominator counts only distributors maintaining 140 PV in a rolling five-week period, so the figure across everyone who ever paid a kit fee is lower still.

99%
Associate - 99.44% of distributors, average $1.05 for the yearPromoter - 0.3%, average $502.08Every rank above Promoter combined - each under 0.1%
ProductPricePays
Basic entry kit ("New U Pack")
One bottle of SomaDerm, a one-year affiliate membership and a replicated website. The $199 figure is corroborated across all three independent reviews consulted. The renewal position after the first year is not clearly disclosed anywhere.
$199
one-time
$20 to the sponsor
Pro Pack
Four to six bottles plus membership and website. Sources conflict on the exact price and this report does not resolve the conflict. At roughly $170 a bottle retail-equivalent, the pack is priced near the notional value of the product in it, which is what makes the "kit discount" framing work.
$499 or $559
one-time
$60 to the sponsor
Executive Pack
Eight bottles plus membership and website. Sources conflict on the exact figure. Note that the sponsor bonus scales with what the recruit spent on entry - $20, $60, $120 - which is a statement about what the plan rewards.
$899 or $999
one-time
$120 to the sponsor
SomaDerm gel - single retail bottle
The flagship. A real per-unit margin on a real repeat-purchase consumable, and the only income stream available to a distributor who does not recruit. The retail price comes from reviews dated 2019–2023 and could not be reconfirmed at the current storefront.
$169–$170 (96 g)
per unit
$45
SomaDerm on autoship
The discounted subscription price, cited by one 2025-era review. The commission on an autoship order is $25 rather than $45 - the recurring order pays the seller less per unit than the one-off.
~$149.99/month
recurring
$25
140 PV activity requirement
Required within a rolling five-week window to remain eligible for any commission at all, retail or team; 280 PV at Coach rank and above for certain qualifications. Roughly $1,560–$1,800 a year, realistically satisfied by autoshipping one bottle of the flagship every five weeks.
~$130–$150/mo
recurring
Commercial customer bulk order
The largest single retail-side commission in the plan. It is a genuine wholesale mechanic and it is listed here because it is the one route by which a pure seller could earn meaningfully without recruiting - if a buyer for forty bottles exists.
40 gels
per order
$520
Car bonus
A cash allowance of $700 a month at Coach rank and $1,500 at Ambassador and above, tied to maintained rank. Not a vehicle and not equity - a rank-maintenance payment, and the ranks that earn it are the ranks carrying the highest personal volume obligations.
monthly
$700 or $1,500
Background check

Who runs it, and what they ran before

AG
Alexy Goldstein
Founder and Chief Executive Officer

Immigrated to the United States as a teenager, took over a family natural-foods and supplement shop in Pleasant Hill while completing a business degree, and describes himself as a Certified Homeopath and Certified Herbalist - self-reported credentials in a company-friendly trade profile, with no issuing body or accreditation independently verified. He states SomaDerm was developed for athletic recovery and sold at ordinary retail for over sixteen years before the direct-selling launch; if accurate that is a materially better origin story than a product invented to give a compensation plan something to sell, but no pre-2017 retail records could be located to corroborate it. No criminal proceeding, no securities action, no fraud judgment and no regulatory bar against him could be located in any source reviewed.

Tp
The prior venture - Natural Life Foods Corp. dba Strike First Nutrition
Founder-owned predecessor; FTC inquiry closed with no action, 5 August 2019

Before New U Life, the founder owned this company, which marketed Testall Gel - a topical advertised as "the only FDA-registered transdermal testosterone product available without a prescription" and claimed to strengthen bone density, reduce the risk of osteoporosis, balance blood sugar, reduce blood pressure and prevent depression. On 5 August 2019 the Associate Director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices sent a closing letter to his counsel stating that staff had investigated whether the claims violated Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act and had decided not to pursue enforcement, citing modest sales volume and the fact that the product had already been discontinued. Stage label, precisely: that is an inquiry closed with no action. It is not a finding of violation and the letter expressly says it is not a determination that no violation occurred. It is neither a conviction nor an exoneration. What makes it material is not the letter but the pattern it sits inside - an unapproved homeopathic hormone gel, "FDA-registered" framing, sweeping health claims - recurring one product cycle later under a new corporate name.

Gn
Governance note - unresolved internal-control litigation
Najjar v. Goldstein et al., California state court

A thirteen-count complaint filed by George Najjar against the founder and others, alleging wrongful removal as a founder figure and seeking reinstatement, with a preliminary injunction reported as barring asset transfers, dissolution, or the use of alternate entities to sell growth-hormone or testosterone products pending resolution. The docket reference available dates to August 2019 and the current status and outcome could not be located. Stage label: filed claims and a reported interim order, nothing proven, nothing resolved on the public record available. It is recorded because an unresolved dispute over who controls a company is a fact a prospective participant should know, not because any allegation in it has been established.

Cn
Conduct note - the company has sued its critics
Two defamation and breach-of-contract suits filed February 2019

New U Life filed against two former distributors within a week of each other: one over comments posted on an MLM-watchdog site, one over private Facebook messages describing company leadership as "crooks and manipulators." Each sought damages in excess of $100,000. The outcomes of both could not be verified in any source reviewed. Stage label: these are civil claims filed by the company, not government enforcement and not adjudicated findings against anyone. They are recorded here for one reason only - how an operator responds to criticism from its own field is directly relevant to whether a prospective distributor can expect problems to be reported or suppressed, and that is true regardless of who is right on the merits of either suit.

Registered address

Pleasant Hill, California, USA
Self-funded, privately held, with no reported outside institutional investment - a genuine structural credit, because there is no fund with an exit clock pushing recruitment metrics. Operations are described in a trade-press profile as spanning Pleasant Hill, a larger office in Lehi, Utah, and an office in Taipei. There are no audited accounts, so every revenue figure in this report is a third-party estimate published by an industry aggregator rather than a company statement or a filed financial: roughly $272 million in 2020 falling to roughly $128 million in 2025. Treat those as unaudited estimates, and treat the direction of travel - a decline of roughly half across five years - as the part that matters, because it tracks the company’s own disclosed average income falling across three disclosure cycles. A distributor headcount of about 395,000 comes from a 2020 profile and no more recent official figure could be located.

Compensation plan

What has to be true for you to get paid

To coverYou need
Buy in and hold the position for one year $199 + ~$1,560
entry kit plus 140 PV every five weeks at roughly $130 a month
Cover the ongoing autoship from retail margin alone ~3 outside sales a month
three non-autoship bottles at $45 = $135 against ~$130 of qualifying spend
Recover the $199 kit on top of that ~4-5 further sales
pushing full break-even to month two or three for a genuinely capable seller
Beat the mandatory autoship from the average income ~31x the average outcome
$49.45 average annual income against ~$1,560 of annual qualifying spend

Read this twice

The arithmetic here is short and it comes from two published sources - the company’s own 2023 earnings summary and a compensation-plan teardown by the most granular independent reviewer of MLM plan mechanics. The activity requirement is 140 PV in a rolling five-week window, which realistically means autoshipping one bottle of the flagship gel every five weeks: about $130 to $150 a month, $1,560 to $1,800 a year, indefinitely, simply to remain eligible to be paid anything at all. The company’s disclosed average annual income across active distributors is $49.45. So the mandatory spend is around thirty-one times the average receipt, and the average is a mean in a violently right-skewed distribution with no median published - 99.44% of distributors sit at Associate rank averaging $1.05 for the year, while the Diamond Ambassador rank averages $295,790.25 and holds under 0.1%. Two honest caveats belong here and both cut for the company. The 140 PV can in principle be met by genuine outside customer orders rather than self-purchase, and a distributor with a real customer base is not spending that money at all - $45 a bottle on a non-autoship retail order is a workable margin, and the forty-gel commercial order pays $520, which is a serious commission by any standard. And the retail-only path really does break even inside two or three months for someone who can find three to five outside buyers a month, which is a nontrivial but not impossible bar. The bind is the one the plan builds in deliberately: that same retail-only distributor is excluded from binary and matching commissions entirely, because those require two personally sponsored active affiliates. The break-even that matters is therefore not whether the product can be sold - it can - but whether $170-a-bottle repeat customers who are not themselves distributors exist in the numbers required, which is precisely the question the independent reviewer says the plan cannot answer, and which no published retail-versus-internal volume figure exists to settle.

Run your own numbers

Drag the sliders. Nothing here is stored or sent.

-
Cumulative net, after costs
Retained autoship customers -
Commission that month -
Total commissions earned -
Total you paid in -
Net -

A retained customer on the recurring gel order pays the referring affiliate $25; a one-off order without autoship pays $45, and the plan is deliberately structured so the recurring number is the lower one. Cost is the requirement that decides this business: 140 PV every five weeks to stay commission-eligible, which in practice is close to a bottle of the roughly $170 flagship gel on repeat, or about $147 a month before the entry kit. That figure is payable whether or not anyone else ever orders. The binary cycles and the matching bonus are excluded because roughly half the payout is gated behind personally sponsoring at least two active participants, which is a headcount condition rather than a sales one. For calibration, the company’s own most recent disclosure puts average annual income across active distributors below $50 - an average, with no median published, which flatters it - while the autoship alone runs past $1,700 a year. The slider will show that gap long before it shows a profit. Your own subscription cost of $147/mo is included.

Your money

What it costs to replace this yourself

What the same money buys at ordinary retail. Two separate comparisons are drawn and they must not be conflated. The first is against ordinary consumer wellness products at pharmacy and supermarket prices - this is the graded comparison, because it asks what the article in the bottle is worth as the article it chemically is. The second, given at the end, is against genuine prescription growth-hormone therapy from a licensed clinician; that is a lawful medical treatment, it is not a comparator for grading purposes, and it is included only because it is the honest answer to what a prospective buyer is actually reaching for.

What they sell youWhat you'd use insteadYour cost
SomaDerm gel - $169–$170 for 96 gAny mainstream pharmacy homeopathic preparation at 30X or higher - the same expected molecular content~$8-20
The "anti-ageing topical" positioningDrugstore vitamin-C or antioxidant botanical serum of the same class~$10-30
Aloe vera, green tea leaf extract, licorice on the labelAloe and green-tea botanical cream at an ordinary chemist~$10-25
Wild yam and chaste tree on the labelWild-yam or phytoestrogen topical cream at retail~$12-28
Claimed benefits - sleep, mood, energyMainstream magnesium or melatonin sleep supplement, monthly~$8-20/mo
Claimed benefits - joint mobilityStandard glucosamine and chondroitin joint supplement, monthly~$12-25/mo
Claimed benefits - skin, hair, nailsOrdinary multivitamin with collagen, monthly~$15-30/mo
140 PV every five weeks to stay commission-eligible - ~$1,560-1,800/yrNo activity requirement, no rank, no qualification$0
Total as sold
~$1,760-2,800 in year one, kit included
Total, built yourself
~$60-160 of comparable topicals and supplements, bought once

Price-to-value

The multiple on the bottle alone is roughly six to twenty times, depending on which retail article you treat as the honest equivalent - and the honest equivalent is decided by the label, not by the marketing. A 30X preparation is, on ordinary chemistry, an inert dilution in a botanical gel base, and inert dilutions in botanical gel bases sell in ordinary chemists for eight to twenty dollars. The structural gap is larger than the per-bottle gap: the kit, plus the 140 PV every five weeks, turns a preference for a topical gel into roughly $1,760 to $2,800 of committed first-year spend. Separately and on a different footing entirely: genuine prescription growth-hormone therapy, from a licensed clinician after bloodwork and a diagnosis of actual deficiency, is estimated at roughly $800 to $3,000 a month - around $1,200 typical - inclusive of consultation, laboratory work and injectable recombinant hormone. That is eight to twenty times more expensive than this gel, and it is a different thing. A buyer who wants growth-hormone replacement is not buying a cheaper version of it here.

Odds of profit

Three operators, five horizons

Probability of cumulative net profit

Hover any point for median, top decile and bottom quartile.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%3 mo6 mo1 yr3 yr5 yr 3% 29% 13%
The believer-consumer - joins for the personal-use discount, autoships indefinitely, refers a few friendsThe side-hustle retailer - 3-5 bottles a month to genuine outside customers, no recruitingThe builder chasing rank - recruits actively, aims at Coordinator or Coach within 12-18 months

The believer-consumer

joins for the personal-use discount, autoships indefinitely, refers a few friends

HorizonP(profit)Median
3 mo 4% −$540
6 mo 4% −$960
1 yr 3% −$1,720
3 yr 3% −$4,900
5 yr 3% −$8,000

The side-hustle retailer

3-5 bottles a month to genuine outside customers, no recruiting

HorizonP(profit)Median
3 mo 22% −$180
6 mo 29% −$130
1 yr 33% −$120
3 yr 31% −$700
5 yr 29% −$1,400

The builder chasing rank

recruits actively, aims at Coordinator or Coach within 12-18 months

HorizonP(profit)Median
3 mo 6% −$900
6 mo 8% −$1,700
1 yr 10% −$2,900
3 yr 12% −$7,400
5 yr 13% −$11,000

Methodology note. These are modeled outcome ranges, not claims, not promises and not company figures. ANCHORED to published numbers: the company’s own 2023 earnings summary, which puts 99.44% of distributors at Associate rank with an average annual income of $1.05, Promoter at 0.3% averaging $502.08, Coach averaging $11,359.06, Ambassador $37,143.04 and Diamond Ambassador $295,790.25 with every rank above Promoter under 0.1% of the field; the disclosed all-distributor average of $49.45, falling from $117.15 in 2021; and the published cost side - the $199 entry kit, the 140 PV rolling five-week activity requirement at roughly $130 to $150 a month, the $45 and $25 per-bottle commissions, the $520 forty-gel commercial commission, and the $20, $60 and $120 fast-start bonuses. MODELED by us: the proportion of each cohort in cumulative profit, the cohort definitions themselves - the company does not segment its field this way - and the expense side beyond the published items, because the earnings summary expressly states that business expenses including autoship, marketing, samples and travel are not deducted from the figures it reports. Two calibration notes cut in the company’s favor and should be read alongside the tables. The activity requirement can be satisfied by genuine outside customer orders rather than self-purchase, so a distributor with a real customer base is not carrying that $1,560 at all - which is exactly why the retailer profile is the only one of the three with a meaningful share in profit at any horizon. And the top column in the builder row is real: the plan does produce substantial income for a very small number of people, and the disclosure says so itself. What the tables are built to show is the shape of the distribution, not the ceiling of it.

Go-to-market

Where you are actually allowed to promote this

Platform policy reads, not verifications. Check every one before you spend a dollar - enforcement changes faster than the written policy does.

Channel
Status
Notes
The product’s regulatory status in marketing
LISTED, NOT APPROVED - AND NOT CLEARED
SomaDerm is listed in the FDA National Drug Code directory under 61877-0007 in the marketing category "UNAPPROVED HOMEOPATHIC." An NDC listing is a self-reporting process in which a firm tells the FDA it manufactures or distributes a product and self-assigns a code. Nothing is reviewed, nothing is tested, no claim is authorized. This is the single most misunderstood fact about this company and it should be stated flatly: registered is not approved, listed is not cleared, and a national drug code is not a license to say anything at all.
Distributor claims that the product is "FDA approved"
DOCUMENTED AND FLATLY FALSE
A private advertising watchdog maintains a standalone evidence database cataloguing dozens of instances of distributors, and in places the company itself, using "FDA registered" - misleading - and, in documented instances, "FDA approved" - false - across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Craigslist. Stage label: that is a nonprofit’s compilation of alleged deceptive marketing, not a government finding. The underlying claim, however, is not a matter of opinion. The product’s own label says the FDA has not evaluated it.
COVID-19 claims by distributors
FLAGGED IN A 2020 SELF-REGULATORY REFERRAL
The March 2020 DSSRC decision recorded distributors making COVID-19 treatment and prevention claims, and a private watchdog filed a supplemental complaint with the FTC and the FDA in April 2020 on the same subject. This is the most serious category of claim in the file given the public-health stakes at the time. No federal enforcement followed either the referral or the complaint.
Corporate label and official FAQ language
COMPARATIVELY DISCIPLINED - CREDIT WHERE DUE
The DailyMed-filed label carries the mandated homeopathic disclaimer verbatim, and the company’s own consumer FAQ states: "Yes, SOMADERM is registered with the FDA. However, it is important to note that SOMADERM is not FDA Approved." That is the correct sentence, written correctly, and it is a genuine point of compliance at the top of the house. The distinction between disciplined corporate language and undisciplined field conduct is the central channel finding of this report and it should be drawn honestly in both directions.
Earning binary and matching commissions
GATED ON TWO PERSONAL RECRUITS
Binary team commissions require 140 PV personally - 280 at Coach and above - plus at least two personally sponsored active affiliates each generating 140 PV. The unilevel matching bonus pays a percentage of downline binary commissions and so sits behind the same gate. A distributor who sells only to outside customers is excluded from both streams regardless of volume. That is a direct headcount condition on earning.
Staying commission-eligible at all
140 PV EVERY FIVE WEEKS
Roughly one bottle of the flagship gel every five weeks, about $130 to $150 a month, indefinitely. There is no renewal fee as such, which is a real credit - but the activity requirement does the same work, and the independent teardown of this plan identifies affiliate self-consumption rather than independent retail as the likely primary volume driver. No published figure for retail-versus-internal volume exists to settle it either way.
Selling retail without recruiting
PERMITTED AND GENUINELY PAID
$45 on a single non-autoship bottle, $25 on an autoship order, $520 on a forty-gel commercial order. These are real margins on a real repeat-purchase consumable and a capable seller can break even inside two or three months on them. It is the honest half of this opportunity and it deserves to be named as such - while noting that it is, structurally, the half the plan pays least attention to.
Additional fees beyond the kit and the autoship
NONE LOCATED
No mandatory training fees, no certification charges, no leadership-program costs, no event-attendance or ticket requirements were found in any source reviewed. That absence of a second monetisation layer is meaningfully better than the norm in this category and it is the main reason the terms dimension scores as high as it does.
Publicly criticising the company
THE COMPANY HAS SUED CRITICS
Two defamation and breach-of-contract suits were filed in February 2019 against former distributors - one over comments on a watchdog site, one over private Facebook messages - each seeking over $100,000. Both outcomes are unverified. Stage label: filed civil claims by the company, not government action and not findings against anyone. It is recorded because a prospective distributor is entitled to know what happens to distributors who say what they think.
The evidence

Red flags and green flags

Red flags

15
1An FDA laboratory found no meaningful growth hormone in the product
FDA Forensic Chemistry Center summary report, Sample No. 1026141, on a product tested in January 2019: "no evidence for the presence of hGH at a level greater than approximately 7 micrograms per gram," and no evidence of any drugs or poisons. Stage label, precisely: a laboratory finding recorded in an FDA document, obtained and published by a private watchdog. Not a warning letter, not a recall, not a court finding, not an adjudication.
2The label’s own dilution notation says the same thing
"Somatropin 30X" means thirty successive one-in-ten dilutions - a factor of 10^30, roughly a million-fold past Avogadro’s number, which is the point beyond which a solution is not statistically expected to retain a single molecule of the original substance. The laboratory result is chemically unsurprising given what the label itself declares. Both facts are on the same document.
3Listed with the FDA is not approved by the FDA, and it is not cleared either
The NDC directory entry 61877-0007 carries the marketing category "UNAPPROVED HOMEOPATHIC." Listing is a self-reporting process - a firm tells the FDA what it distributes and self-assigns a code. Nothing is reviewed, nothing is tested, and no claim is authorized. This is the single most misunderstood fact about the company.
4Distributors have been documented claiming the product is "FDA approved"
A private advertising watchdog maintains an evidence database cataloguing dozens of instances of "FDA registered" and, in documented cases, the flatly false "FDA approved," across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Craigslist. The compilation is a nonprofit’s, not a government finding - but the claim itself is false against the product’s own label.
5A self-regulatory body referred the company to both the FTC and the FDA in March 2020
DSSRC Case #16-2020, closed 27 March 2020, after finding the company had "repeatedly failed to adhere to its recommendations" from Case #8-2019 and concluding that "systemic issues at the Company... could not be addressed in the context of industry self-regulation." Stage label: DSSRC is a private, industry-funded body administered by BBB National Programs with no enforcement power, and a referral is a referral, not an agency action.
6No federal enforcement followed that referral in more than six years
Recorded as a red flag and a mitigating fact at once, because it is both. No FTC complaint, no consent order, no civil penalty, no FDA warning letter, no seizure, no injunction, no recall could be located. That leaves the underlying health-claim allegations neither established nor cleared by any government body more than six years on - an unusually long unresolved status either way.
7COVID-19 treatment and prevention claims by distributors
Recorded in the March 2020 self-regulatory decision and the subject of a separate April 2020 watchdog complaint to the FTC and the FDA. The most serious claim category in the file given the moment at which it occurred. No enforcement followed.
8Roughly half the plan’s payout streams are gated on personally sponsoring two people
Binary team commissions require 140 PV personally - 280 at Coach and above - plus at least two personally sponsored active affiliates each doing 140 PV. The unilevel matching bonus overrides downline binary commissions and so is gated behind the same condition. A distributor who only sells to outside customers is excluded from both, at any volume.
9Staying eligible to earn anything costs roughly $1,560 to $1,800 a year
140 PV within a rolling five-week period, realistically satisfied by autoshipping one bottle of the flagship gel every five weeks at roughly $130 to $150 a month, indefinitely. Against a disclosed average annual income of $49.45, the mandatory spend is about thirty-one times the average receipt.
10The disclosure publishes an average and no median
In a distribution where 99.44% of distributors average $1.05 and the top rank averages $295,790.25, the mean flatters the typical experience severely. The all-distributor average of $49.45 is also computed only across those maintaining 140 PV, so the figure across everyone who ever bought a kit is lower still.
11Average disclosed income has fallen across three cycles
An Associate-level average of $2,163.20 in the 2019 statement - which the self-regulatory body itself called "unusually high compared to other direct selling companies" and treated as undermining confidence in the disclosure - then $117.15 as the all-distributor average in 2021, then $49.45 in 2023.
12Estimated revenue has roughly halved since 2020
Roughly $272 million in 2020 to roughly $128 million in 2025, per an industry aggregator. These are third-party unaudited estimates, not company figures and not filed financials, and no insolvency, receivership or failure of any kind has been found. The direction is what matters: a shrinking pool paying a shrinking field.
13The entity on the drug label is not the entity selling the opportunity
The corporation is New U Life Corporation, California C4017199. The labeler named on the product’s own NDC and DailyMed filing is "Natural Life Foods Corporation dba XYGENYX and Apotheca Company" - the same corporate name as the founder’s prior venture. Four overlapping names across the operator, the label filer and the predecessor make it genuinely hard to map who is legally responsible for what.
14The founder’s prior venture ran a closely similar claim pattern
A topical hormone gel advertised as "FDA-registered" and available without a prescription, with sweeping health claims, drawing an FTC inquiry closed with no action on 5 August 2019 - a closing letter that expressly states it is not a determination that no violation occurred. The letter is not the finding. The recurrence of the same architecture one product cycle later is.
15Unresolved internal-control litigation and defamation suits against critics
A thirteen-count complaint alleging wrongful removal of a founder figure, with a reported preliminary injunction, status unlocated. And two suits the company itself filed in February 2019 against former distributors over public and private criticism, each seeking over $100,000, outcomes unverified. Filed claims and unresolved matters. Nothing proven in any direction.

Green flags

10
1There is no securities exposure here at all
No investment contract, no promised return on capital, no token, no staking, no yield, no equity offering, and no securities regulator involvement in any jurisdiction could be located. The company is self-funded. A participant’s risk is business expense and opportunity cost, which is a completely different category of risk from handing money over against a promise.
2It publishes an income disclosure at all, at a stable public address
Named, dated, with a rank-by-rank table, updated across at least three cycles. A great many companies in this category publish nothing. The numbers in it are the reason for much of this grade - but publishing them is a real credit and it should be said before the criticism, not after.
3No pay-to-play beyond the kit and the activity requirement
No mandatory training fees, no certification charges, no leadership-program costs, no event-attendance obligations and no ticket requirements were located in any source reviewed. The second monetisation layer that turns a distributor into a customer of the opportunity itself is simply absent, and that is genuinely better than much of this category.
4Self-funded, with no outside institutional investors
No private-equity roll-up, no venture fund, no exit clock. That removes one of the more reliable drivers of growth-at-all-costs recruitment behavior. It is a structural fact in the company’s favor and it holds regardless of anything else in this file.
5The corporate label and FAQ language are comparatively disciplined
The mandated homeopathic disclaimer appears verbatim on the product’s own filed label, and the company’s consumer FAQ states outright that the product "is not FDA Approved" rather than claiming otherwise. The documented problem is field-level conduct, not corporate copy, and that distinction is real and worth drawing.
6Retail commissions are genuine and a retail-only seller can break even
$45 on a single non-autoship bottle, $25 on autoship, $520 on a forty-gel commercial order. Three outside sales a month covers the activity requirement; four or five more recovers the kit. For someone who can actually find buyers, full break-even lands inside two or three months, which is a nontrivial but not impossible bar.
7The binary carries a real anti-abuse cap
A maximum of 417 cycles per week per affiliate limits how much any single position can extract from a binary flush regardless of downline size. It is an ordinary and legitimate ceiling, it is not universal in this category, and it deserves to be counted.
8A genuine repeat-purchase consumable, with low complaint volume for its scale
A topical gel used up over weeks is an ordinary commerce category, not a durable good sold once or a purely digital opportunity product. The BBB file carries an A- grade - marked down for one unanswered complaint, and not accredited - with low absolute complaint volume against a claimed distributor base once reported at around 395,000.
9No pyramid finding, no enforcement action, no court finding, anywhere
No government body has found this to be a pyramid scheme. No FTC action, no consent order, no civil penalty, no FDA warning letter, no recall, no seizure, no injunction, no class action and no state attorney general action was identified in any source reviewed. One independent watchdog reviewer argues the structure resembles a pyramid in substance - that is one reviewer’s structural analysis, and it is not a legal finding.
10A claimed pre-MLM retail history for the product
The founder states the gel was developed for athletic recovery and sold at ordinary retail for over sixteen years before the direct-selling launch. No pre-2017 records could be located to corroborate it, so it is recorded as an unverified claim - but if accurate it is a materially different origin story from a product invented to give a compensation plan something to sell, and fairness requires stating it.
What would move this grade

We would like to be wrong about this

Upward

  • A completed, independently published third-party efficacy study for the product - the company has said one is in progress - together with a corporate decision to stop marketing a 30X preparation with hormone-delivery vocabulary, which is the single largest available upgrade because it is what the whole file turns on.
  • An income disclosure that publishes a median beside the average, a zero-earner percentage, headcounts by rank and an expense-adjusted net figure; plus a published retail-versus-internal volume split, which would directly answer the one structural question no source can currently settle.
  • Resolution of the internal-control litigation with clean governance established, an end to the practice of suing distributor critics, a clearly disclosed renewal fee and buyback policy, and a documented compliance audit showing "FDA approved" claims in the field have measurably stopped.

Downward

  • Any actual FTC or FDA enforcement action - a complaint, a warning letter, a consent order, a seizure, an injunction or a recall - which would convert a six-year unresolved absence into an adverse finding and would make an F ceiling bind immediately.
  • A confirmed action by an overseas medicines regulator in any of the markets the company has entered, or a confirmed class action or state attorney general action, none of which was identified as of this review.
  • A further income disclosure showing the all-distributor average falling below $49.45, or confirmation that the post-first-year renewal fee is materially higher than the sources suggest, either of which worsens an already inverted break-even.
The better trade

Grade is D-, score 3.14. No regulator has acted against this company in six years - and its own product label declares a dilution that, on ordinary chemistry, contains nothing of what the product is named for.

Say the good parts first and mean them. There is no securities exposure in this file at all: no investment contract, no promised return, no token, no equity, no securities regulator anywhere. The company is self-funded, so nobody behind it has an exit clock. It publishes an income disclosure at a stable public address with a rank table on it, which a great many companies in this category simply do not. There is no second pay-to-play layer - no training fees, no certification charges, no event or ticket requirements were located anywhere. The binary carries a genuine cap at 417 cycles a week. Retail commissions are real: $45 a bottle on a one-off order, $520 on a forty-gel commercial order, and a capable seller covers the activity requirement on three outside sales a month. And the corporate language is careful where it counts - the label carries the mandated disclaimer verbatim, and the company’s own FAQ says in terms that the product is not FDA approved.

Then the product, stated with precision and no embellishment. SomaDerm sells at a reported $169 to $170 for a 96-gram bottle and is marketed as delivering growth hormone through the skin. Its own FDA-filed label lists the active ingredient as "Somatropin 30X" - thirty successive one-in-ten dilutions, a factor of 10^30, roughly a million-fold beyond the point at which a solution is expected to retain any molecule of what was diluted. An FDA Forensic Chemistry Center laboratory summary report, Sample No. 1026141, on a product tested in January 2019, found "no evidence for the presence of hGH at a level greater than approximately 7 micrograms per gram." That is a laboratory finding in an FDA document, surfaced by a private watchdog - not a warning letter, not a recall, not a court finding, not an adjudication - and no seizure, injunction, recall or enforcement action followed it in the years since. The label also says, because it must: "This homeopathic product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for safety or efficacy. FDA is not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective." Being listed in the FDA drug-code directory is not approval and it is not clearance. It is a self-reporting exercise.

And the plan around it. Roughly half the payout streams - binary team commissions and the unilevel matching bonus that overrides them - require two personally sponsored active affiliates before a distributor can touch either. Remaining eligible to earn anything costs 140 PV every five weeks, about $1,560 to $1,800 a year. The company’s own 2023 disclosure puts the average annual income across active distributors at $49.45, with 99.44% at the Associate rank averaging $1.05, and no median is published in a distribution where the top rank averages $295,790.25. That average has fallen from $117.15 in 2021, while third-party unaudited estimates put revenue down from roughly $272 million in 2020 to roughly $128 million in 2025. In March 2020 a self-regulatory body referred the company’s health and earnings claims to both the FTC and the FDA after finding it had repeatedly failed to follow the body’s own recommendations; nothing came of it in more than six years. None of that is a court finding. All of it is the file.

1

Buy the product as a product, if you want it - and read the label first

You do not need a distributor position to buy a bottle, and the position costs $199 plus roughly $130 a month to keep alive. Before you buy either, read the two sentences the FDA requires on the label: that it has not been evaluated for safety or efficacy, and that the FDA is not aware of scientific evidence supporting homeopathy as effective. Then look at "Somatropin 30X" and understand what the notation means. If you still want the gel for its aloe, green tea and licorice, an ordinary chemist sells that category of thing for $10 to $30.

2

Do the $49.45-against-$1,560 sum before you enrol

Both numbers are available. One is the company’s own disclosed average annual income across active distributors; the other is what the 140 PV activity requirement costs over a year if outside customers do not cover it. If the mandatory spend is roughly thirty-one times the average receipt, the question is not whether anyone wins - some clearly do - but what specific, written-down reason you have to believe you are not the average. And remember the average is a mean with no median beside it.

3

If you go anywhere near this, go retail-only and price the gate honestly

The retail side is the honest half: $45 a bottle on a one-off order, $520 on a forty-gel commercial order, break-even inside two or three months for someone who can genuinely find three to five outside buyers a month. But understand the bind the plan builds in - with no recruits you are locked out of binary and matching commissions permanently, at any sales volume. Decide whether you are willing to be a retailer inside a plan that pays its retailers second, and get the renewal fee after year one, the buyback percentage and the return window in writing before you spend anything.

4

Sell into the anti-aging and hormone-health question without the plan

Search demand around growth hormone, aging, sleep, recovery and hormone testing is enormous and the honest information supply is thin. Explaining what a homeopathic X dilution actually is, what "FDA registered" does and does not mean, and what a licensed clinician charges for genuine prescription therapy after real bloodwork - roughly $800 to $3,000 a month - is content with real demand and no kit, no activity requirement, no rank and no obligation to be careful about what you say. It is also, on the evidence in this report, more useful to the reader than the product.

The product is named for a hormone its own label says has been diluted by a factor of 10^30, and an FDA laboratory found none of it - and no regulator has done anything about that in more than six years.
Scorecard

Nine dimensions, weighted

Comp structure & KoscotDoes the plan pay for recruitment or for sales to real customers?
20%
2.0
The plan is a binary core with unilevel matching layered over it, and the gate is explicit: to earn binary team commissions at all - $40 per matched cycle at Promoter and Coordinator rank, $60 at Coach and above, on a 600/400 PV matched-cycle basis - an affiliate must hold 140 PV personally, or 280 PV at Coach and above, AND personally sponsor at least two active affiliates each generating 140 PV of their own. That is a direct headcount condition on earning, and it sits in front of roughly half the payout mechanics in the plan, because the unilevel matching bonus pays a percentage of downline affiliates’ binary commissions and therefore cannot be reached either. An affiliate who sells nothing but product to outside customers, in any quantity, is structurally excluded from both streams. What that person is left with is real and should be stated plainly: $45 commission on a single non-autoship gel order, $25 on an autoship order, and $520 on a forty-gel commercial order. Those are genuine retail margins on a genuine repeat-purchase consumable. They are also, by design, the secondary half of the plan. Add the fast-start bonus paid to the sponsor when a recruit buys a kit - $20 on the $199 tier, $60 on the mid tier, $120 on the top tier, scaling with what the recruit spent on the way in - and the plan’s statement of what it values is not ambiguous.
Securities exposureAny passive return on capital? Howey, staking, tokens, withdrawal friction.
15%
9.0
This dimension asks one question - is the participant handing over capital against a promised return - and here the answer is favorably, unambiguously no. No investment contract could be located. No promised rate of return on capital. No token, no staking, no yield, no equity offering, no revenue-share instrument, no passive-income product of any kind. No securities regulator in any jurisdiction has been involved with this company in any capacity that could be located. The company is self-funded with no reported outside institutional investors, so there is no fundraising narrative to service either. Compensation is paid on product movement and on recruitment of people who move product; it is not paid on deposits. The participant’s exposure here is business expense and opportunity cost - the kit, the autoship, the time - and not securities exposure. This has to be said flatly because the rest of this report is severe and a reader could easily carry the severity across: a catastrophic compensation structure is not securities exposure, and grading it as though it were would be dishonest. The single mark deducted from a perfect score is the size of the entry outlay. A kit reported between $199 and $999 containing between one and eight bottles of product is capital at risk in inventory terms, and the top tiers are inventory purchases in substance whatever they are called.
Ownership & track recordWho runs it, what did they run before, and what happened to it.
15%
2.5
Start with what has NOT been found, because it is substantial: no criminal proceeding, no securities action, no fraud judgment, no regulatory bar against any principal, in any source reviewed. Against that, four things. First, the founder’s prior venture - Natural Life Foods Corp. dba Strike First Nutrition - marketed a topical hormone gel using a closely similar "FDA-registered" claim pattern and sweeping health claims, and drew an FTC inquiry that was closed with no action on 5 August 2019; label it exactly that way, an inquiry closed with no enforcement, expressly not a determination that no violation occurred, and expressly not an exoneration. The recurrence of the same claim architecture one product cycle later under a different corporate shell is the finding, not the letter. Second, Najjar v. Goldstein, a thirteen-count internal-control complaint with a reported preliminary injunction, whose current status could not be located - unresolved, nothing proven. Third, the company’s practice of bringing defamation proceedings against distributor critics, two filed in February 2019 seeking over $100,000 each, outcomes unverified. Fourth, and quietly the most awkward: the corporate entity is New U Life Corporation, but the entity named as labeler on the product’s own drug filing is "Natural Life Foods Corporation dba XYGENYX and Apotheca Company." Four overlapping names across the operating company, the label filer and the predecessor make it genuinely difficult for an outsider to establish who is legally responsible for what, and that opacity is itself the mark.
Product reality & demandWould a rational buyer purchase this if no income offer existed?
12%
2.0
This is the acute finding of the report and it deserves precision rather than heat. SomaDerm is marketed as a transdermal growth-hormone gel, sold at a reported $169–$170 a bottle. Its own FDA-filed label lists the active ingredient as "Somatropin 30X." In homeopathic notation each X is a further one-in-ten dilution, so 30X means the original substance has been diluted by a factor of 10^30 - roughly a million times beyond Avogadro’s number, the point past which a solution is not statistically expected to retain even a single molecule of what was diluted. On ordinary chemistry, a 30X preparation is not expected to contain any measurable growth hormone at all. Independently, an FDA Forensic Chemistry Center laboratory summary report, Sample No. 1026141, on a product tested in January 2019, found "no evidence for the presence of hGH at a level greater than approximately 7 micrograms per gram," and no evidence of any drugs or poisons. Stage-label that carefully: it is a laboratory finding recorded in an FDA document, obtained and published by a private watchdog. It is not a warning letter, not a recall, not a court finding, not an adjudication - and no seizure, injunction, recall or enforcement action followed it in the years since. The product’s own official label carries the mandated sentence: "This homeopathic product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for safety or efficacy. FDA is not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective." Now the fairness. The gel base is not nothing: water, aloe vera, green tea leaf extract, licorice, chaste tree, epimedium, ginkgo, wild yam, vitamin E, vitamin C and standard cosmetic emulsifiers and preservatives are real ingredients that do what topical botanicals do. It is a genuine repeat-purchase consumable, some customers do reorder, and BBB complaint volume is low for a company of this claimed scale. The question that decides the score is whether a rational buyer, told accurately what the label says and what the laboratory found, would pay $170 a bottle for that formulation with no income opportunity attached. On this evidence the answer is no, and the score reflects the gap between what is in the bottle and what the name on the bottle promises.
Participant economicsReal cost in, realistic money out, and whether they publish the numbers.
10%
1.5
Credit the disclosure first, because it exists and is published at a stable public address with a rank table on it, which a great many companies in this category do not manage. Now the numbers. Remaining commission-eligible requires 140 PV within a rolling five-week period, which in practice means autoship-ordering roughly one bottle of the flagship gel every five weeks - about $130 to $150 a month, or roughly $1,560 to $1,800 a year, indefinitely, before a single marketing dollar. Against that, the company’s own most recent located disclosure, for 2023, puts the average annual income across active distributors at $49.45. The mandatory spend is therefore roughly thirty-one times the average receipt. And that $49.45 is an average across actives, with no median published - in a payout distribution this right-skewed, where the Diamond Ambassador rank averages $295,790.25 and 99.44% of distributors sit at Associate averaging $1.05, the mean flatters the typical experience severely and a median would be lower still. The denominator also already excludes lapsed enrollees, so the true figure across everyone who ever paid a kit fee is lower, not higher. The trajectory across disclosure cycles is the rest of it: an Associate-level average of $2,163.20 in the 2019 statement - a figure the self-regulatory body itself called "unusually high compared to other direct selling companies" and treated as undermining confidence in the disclosure - then $117.15 as the all-distributor average in 2021, then $49.45 in 2023. Whatever the 2019 number was measuring, the direction since is unambiguous.
Price-to-valueWhat the same capability costs on the open market.
8%
1.0
A 96-gram bottle at a reported $169–$170, or about $149.99 a month on autoship. Set that against ordinary retail. Homeopathic preparations generally - any product at a 30X or higher dilution, which is to say any product with the same expected molecular content - sell in mainstream pharmacies for roughly $8 to $20, putting this at eight to twenty times the shelf price of a chemically comparable article. The botanical and cosmetic ingredients that actually populate the label are commodity items: a drugstore vitamin-C serum, a wild-yam or phytoestrogen topical, a ginkgo or green-tea antioxidant cream all sit in the $10 to $30 range at an ordinary chemist, which puts the bottle at roughly six to seventeen times the cost of the category of thing it chemically is. Mainstream supplements addressing the same claimed benefit areas - sleep, joint comfort, energy, skin - run $15 to $40 a month with materially more evidence behind them. Then, separately and on entirely different footing, the comparison a buyer of this product is actually reaching for: genuine prescription growth-hormone therapy from a licensed clinician, after bloodwork and a diagnosis of actual deficiency, is estimated at roughly $800 to $3,000 a month, around $1,200 typical, inclusive of consultation, laboratory work and injectable recombinant hormone. That comparison is not a grading input and must not be read as one - it is a different product, lawfully prescribed, and it is genuinely eight to twenty times more expensive. It is included because it is the honest answer to the question a prospective buyer is asking. Someone who wants growth-hormone therapy is not buying a discounted version of it here; on the laboratory finding and the label’s own dilution notation, they are buying a different product marketed with the same vocabulary.
Payout sustainabilityCan the company fund the plan out of margin, or only out of inflow?
8%
3.0
The trajectory, with its source characterised properly: third-party unaudited estimates published by an industry aggregator, not company figures and not filed financials, running roughly $272 million in 2020, $250 million across 2021 to 2023, $150 million in 2024 and $128 million in 2025 - a decline of roughly half across five years. The same aggregator estimates a 2025 commission payout ratio of about 35%, or roughly $44.8 million; that too is unaudited. Alongside it, the company’s own disclosed average annual income falls from $117.15 in 2021 to $49.45 in 2023. Two independent series, one estimated and one self-published, pointing the same way: a shrinking pool paying a shrinking field. What must not be inferred from any of it is distress. No insolvency, no receivership, no wind-down, no missed-payment reporting, no failure of any kind has been found, and a private company with declining estimated revenue is not a company in trouble - it is a company with declining estimated revenue. The mark reflects direction of travel and the unaudited quality of every figure available, nothing more.
Marketing conductIncome claims, regulator run-ins, hype, deadline stacking.
7%
1.5
Draw the distinction first, because it is real and it cuts in the company’s favor. The corporate label carries the mandated homeopathic disclaimer verbatim, and the company’s own consumer FAQ states in terms: "Yes, SOMADERM is registered with the FDA. However, it is important to note that SOMADERM is not FDA Approved." That is the correct sentence and comparatively few operators in this category write it. The problem documented in the record is field-level. A private watchdog maintains a standalone evidence database cataloguing dozens of instances of distributors - and in places the company itself - using "FDA registered" and, in documented instances, the flatly false "FDA approved," across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Craigslist. A product listed with the FDA under a national drug code is neither approved nor cleared; the NDC directory is a self-reporting listing process, not a review process, and this is the single most misunderstood fact about this company. Then the self-regulatory file. DSSRC Case #8-2019, a monitoring inquiry decided around January 2020, found numerous unsupported health-benefit claims across the company website and distributor social media and no evidence that the product or its ingredients provided the claimed benefits. DSSRC Case #16-2020, closed 27 March 2020, found the company had "repeatedly failed to adhere to its recommendations," recorded continuing unsupported performance claims plus COVID-19 treatment and prevention claims by distributors, concluded that "systemic issues at the Company... could not be addressed in the context of industry self-regulation," and referred the matter to both the FTC and the FDA. Stage-label all of it: DSSRC is a private, industry-funded self-regulatory body administered by BBB National Programs with no enforcement power, and a referral is a referral rather than an agency action. No FTC or FDA enforcement resulted in more than six years.
Operator terms & exitWho owns the customer, what you forfeit, how hard it is to leave.
5%
4.0
The best-scoring dimension in the file after securities exposure, and the reason is a genuine absence. No mandatory training fees, no certification fees, no leadership-program charges, no event-attendance requirements and no ticket obligations could be located in any source reviewed. That second monetisation layer - the one that turns a distributor into a customer of the opportunity itself - is simply not here, and in this category that is meaningfully better than the norm. There is also a legitimate anti-abuse ceiling in the plan: binary cycling is capped at 417 cycles per week per affiliate, which limits how much any one position can extract from a flush regardless of downline size. The deductions are two. The kits are described as including a one-year membership, which implies a renewal charge after the first year that is not clearly disclosed anywhere and could not be quantified from any source. And the exit and refund terms - buyback percentage, return window, treatment of unopened inventory, termination mechanics - could not be independently verified, which for a business whose activity requirement generates a bottle of product every five weeks is exactly the term a participant most needs to read before signing.
Weighted composite
3.14
D-

Dimension profile

Further from center is better. Hover any point.

Comp structure& Koscot 2.0 Securitiesexposure 9.0 Ownership &track record 2.5 Product reality& demand 2.0 Participanteconomics 1.5 Price-to-value 1.0 Payoutsustainability 3.0 Marketingconduct 1.5 Operator terms& exit 4.0

Hard caps that bind here

Ceiling at D- - non-binding; the nine numbers already earned this grade the weighted arithmetic lands at 3.14, which is below D, so nothing here is imposed from outside the scorecard. The ceiling is written down only to name what it rests on and, more importantly, what it does not. It rests on two factors the weighting under-represents: the product-integrity record, which carries 12%, and the documented field-claim pattern, which carries 7%. A product whose own label declares a 30X dilution, whose sample was found by an FDA laboratory to contain no meaningful quantity of the hormone it is named after, and whose field has been independently documented calling it "FDA approved," is carrying more weight against the file than 19% of a composite can express. What would make an F ceiling bind is specific and neither condition is met: an actual FTC or FDA enforcement action - a complaint, a warning letter, a consent order, a seizure, an injunction or a recall - or documentary evidence that the company knew the January 2019 laboratory result and continued the growth-hormone claim regardless. Now what this ceiling does NOT rest on, so that no reader infers a charge this report has not made. No regulator has taken enforcement action against this company in more than six years. The March 2020 DSSRC referral to the FTC and the FDA produced nothing that could be located. The FTC matter concerning the founder’s prior company was an inquiry closed with no action. There has been no recall, no seizure and no injunction. No court has found anything against the company, and no criminal, securities or pyramid-scheme finding exists anywhere against it or against any principal. The grade is severe because the evidence about the product and the plan is severe, not because a regulator has said so.

The lowest binding cap wins, regardless of the weighted arithmetic.

Sources consulted

What we read

Every source below links to the document itself. Tier 1 is a primary record - the company’s own plan, policy or disclosure, a court filing, a regulator’s decision or an SEC filing. Tier 2 is a self-regulatory or secondary regulator record, tier 3 reporting or academic work, tier 4 an open-market price comparison. Where a document can be moved or withdrawn, an archived copy is linked beside it. If a link is dead when you try it, that is a correction we want.

  1. FDA Forensic Chemistry Center Case/Sample Summary Report, Sample No. 1026141 - SOMADERM Transdermal Homeopathic Gel, analyzed January 2019 (PDF, obtained and published by TINA.org)
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Forensic Chemistry Center (copy published by Truth in Advertising, Inc.) · 2019archived copy

    FDA Forensic Chemistry Center summary report, Sample No. 1026141, product tested January 2019 - analysis for identification and quantification of human growth hormone and testosterone by LC-MS and GC-MS; finding of no evidence of hGH above approximately 7 micrograms per gram and no evidence of any drugs or poisons. Obtained and published by a private advertising watchdog; not an FDA warning letter and not issued to the company

  2. TINA.org, "What You Should Know about New U Life" - the article reporting the Forensic Chemistry Center finding of no hGH above ~7 µg/g
    ReportingTier 3Truth in Advertising, Inc. · 2019-08-27archived copy
  3. DailyMed label: SOMADERM (glandula suprarenalis suis, thyroidinum – bovine, hgh) gel, NDC 61877-0007, labeler Natural Life Foods Corporation dba XYGENYX, marketing category "unapproved homeopathic," marketing start 18 September 2019
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. National Library of Medicine, DailyMed (FDA-submitted Structured Product Label) · 2019-09archived copy

    FDA National Drug Code directory and DailyMed label for SOMADERM, NDC 61877-0007 - marketing category "UNAPPROVED HOMEOPATHIC," labeler "Natural Life Foods Corporation dba XYGENYX," marketing start 18 September 2019; active ingredients Somatropin 30X, Glandula Suprarenalis Suis 6X, Thyroidinum (Bovine) 8X; full inactive-ingredient list; and the mandated disclaimer that the product has not been evaluated by the FDA for safety or efficacy

  4. SOMADERM Structured Product Label, full Drug Facts display including active and inactive ingredients and the homeopathic non-evaluation disclaimer
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. National Library of Medicine, DailyMed · 2019-09archived copy
  5. FDA Warning Letters database, full-text search for "New U Life" - no warning letter to the company or to its label filer is returned
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Food and Drug Administrationarchived copy

    FDA warning-letter database and the agency’s 2019 health-fraud warning-letter compilation - searched directly and confirming the absence of any listed warning letter to this company or to the label filer

    Not established by this document: The FDA warning-letter database search is citable and confirms the negative. The separate "2019 health-fraud warning-letter compilation" the prose refers to could not be resolved to a single stable fda.gov page and is not cited rather than guessed at.

  6. "Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 400.400 Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May Be Marketed; Withdrawal of Guidance," 84 FR 57439, Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4611, 25 October 2019
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Food and Drug Administration / Office of the Federal Register · 2019-10-25archived copy

    FDA withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 400.400, Federal Register notice of 25 October 2019, and the December 2022 risk-based homeopathic-drug enforcement guidance - the framework under which an unapproved homeopathic topical sits outside the agency’s highest enforcement priorities

  7. FDA final guidance, "Homeopathic Drug Products — Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry," December 2022, Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6580
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER and CBER · 2022-12-07archived copy
  8. "Homeopathic Drug Products" final guidance, December 2022 (PDF full text)
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDER and CBER · 2022-12archived copy
  9. DSSRC Case #8-2019 (Monitoring Inquiry) - New U Life, decision published December 2019 / January 2020
    Self-regulatoryTier 2BBB National Programs, Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council · 2020-01archived copy

    DSSRC Case #8-2019 (Monitoring Inquiry), decided around January 2020 - unsupported health-benefit claims across the company website and distributor social media, and the finding that the disclosed $2,163.20 Associate-level average was "unusually high compared to other direct selling companies"; and DSSRC Case #16-2020 (Government Referral Report), closed 27 March 2020 - repeated failure to adhere to recommendations, COVID-19 claims by distributors, "systemic issues... could not be addressed in the context of industry self-regulation," and referral to the FTC and the FDA. BBB National Programs administers DSSRC; it is a private industry-funded self-regulator with no enforcement power

  10. DSSRC Case #16-2020 (Government Referral Report) - New U Life, referral to the FTC and the FDA, closed 27 March 2020
    Self-regulatoryTier 2BBB National Programs, Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council · 2020-03-27archived copy
  11. BBB National Programs press release, "Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Refers Health-Related Product Claims by New U Life, Inc. to the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration," 7 April 2020
    Self-regulatoryTier 2BBB National Programs · 2020-04-07archived copy
  12. FTC closing letter to counsel for Natural Life Foods Corp. d/b/a Strike First Nutrition, 5 August 2019 (FTC case page)
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices · 2019-08-05archived copy

    FTC closing letter of 5 August 2019 from the Associate Director, Division of Advertising Practices, to counsel for the founder concerning Natural Life Foods Corp. dba Strike First Nutrition and Testall Gel - staff investigated under Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act and decided not to pursue enforcement, citing modest sales volume and product discontinuation, while stating the closing is not a determination that no violation occurred

  13. FTC closing letter, Associate Director Mary K. Engle to counsel for Natural Life Foods Corp. d/b/a Strike First Nutrition re Testall Gel, FTC File No. 192-3065 (PDF)
    RegulatorTier 1U.S. Federal Trade Commission · 2019-08-05archived copy
  14. New U Life Corporation 2023 Distributor Compensation Summary (official Earnings Summary; all-distributor average $49.45, 140 PV / 5-week rolling active definition, expenses expressly not deducted)
    Income disclosureTier 1New U Life Corporation · 2023archived copy

    New U Life official earnings summary, 2023 - all-distributor average of $49.45; Associate 99.44% at $1.05; Promoter 0.3% at $502.08; Coach $11,359.06; Life Coach $17,898.74; Ambassador $37,143.04; Diamond Ambassador $295,790.25; ranks above Promoter each under 0.1%; expenses expressly not deducted; figures apply only to distributors holding 140 PV in a rolling five-week period. Prior cycles: $2,163.20 Associate average in 2019 and $117.15 all-distributor average in 2021, the latter located only via secondary citation

  15. New U Life Corporation 2019 Distributor Compensation Summary (PDF, archived copy published by TINA.org)
    Income disclosureTier 1New U Life Corporation (copy published by Truth in Advertising, Inc.) · 2019archived copy
  16. BehindMLM, "NewULife Review: Homeopathic human growth hormone gel" - compensation-plan teardown (binary 600/400 PV cycles at $40 and $60, 417-cycle weekly cap, 140/280 PV activity, seven-rank ladder and GV thresholds, $20/$60/$120 fast-start bonuses, retail commissions $45/$25/$520)
    ReportingTier 3BehindMLM · 2018-04-10archived copy

    Independent compensation-plan teardown by the sector’s most granular MLM-plan reviewer - binary 600/400 PV matched cycles at $40 and $60, 417-cycle weekly cap, 140 PV/5-week activity requirement and 280 PV at Coach and above, the two-personally-sponsored-actives gate on binary eligibility, fast-start bonuses of $20/$60/$120, unilevel matching percentages by rank, coded recruitment-bonus pool percentages, the seven-rank ladder and its GV thresholds, car bonuses of $700 and $1,500 a month, and retail commissions of $45, $25 and $520

  17. New U Life US Compensation Plan Overview (official PDF) - five compensation methods, 600 GV / 400 GV cycle definition, $40 and $60 cycle values, rank qualification and matching-bonus percentages, $199/$499/$999 enrollment packs
    Compensation planTier 1New U Life Corporationarchived copy
  18. TINA.org complaint letter to the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection and the FDA Health Fraud Branch re New U Life's deceptive marketing of Somaderm Gel, 5 September 2019 (PDF)
    ReportingTier 3Truth in Advertising, Inc. · 2019-09-05archived copy

    Private advertising-watchdog file - the September 2019 complaint letter to the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection and the FDA Health Fraud Branch, the April 2020 supplemental complaint on COVID-19 claims, the standalone "FDA registered / FDA approved" claims evidence database, the January 2019 self-regulatory conclusion by the predecessor electronic-retailing program, and the reporting on the two February 2019 defamation suits and the internal-control litigation

    Not established by this document: The ERSP Case #433 decision (23 January 2019) itself is no longer published at any retrievable URL - the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program was wound up and its case archive is not on bbbprograms.org. It is cited here only through the BakerHostetler write-up and the DSSRC decisions that quote it.

  19. TINA.org supplemental complaint letter to the FTC and FDA re New U Life's coronavirus marketing, 8 April 2020 (PDF)
    ReportingTier 3Truth in Advertising, Inc. · 2020-04-08archived copy
  20. TINA.org evidence database, "New U Life 'FDA Registered/Approved' Claims"
    ReportingTier 3Truth in Advertising, Inc.archived copy
  21. New U Life, Inc. v. Hargett - defamation complaint, February 2019 (PDF copy published by TINA.org)
    Court recordTier 1Superior Court of California (complaint copy published by Truth in Advertising, Inc.) · 2019-02archived copy
  22. Najjar v. Goldstein and New U Life, Inc., Contra Costa County Superior Court No. CIVMSC18-00581 - docket as of 26 August 2019, showing the 13 April 2018 order granting in part the preliminary injunction (PDF copy published by TINA.org)
    Court recordTier 1Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (docket copy published by Truth in Advertising, Inc.) · 2019-08-26archived copy
  23. BakerHostetler (Goldstein and Mudge), "Hormone Gel Manufacturer Needs to Dial Back the Claims" - report of the January 2019 ERSP Case #433 decision on Somaderm
    ReportingTier 3BakerHostetler, published via Lexology · 2019-02-08archived copy
  24. California Secretary of State business entity record, NEW U LIFE CORPORATION, entity C4017199, domestic stock, registered 26 April 2017, Pleasant Hill (third-party mirror of Secretary of State data)
    Corporate registryTier 3California Secretary of State data, mirrored by City-Data.com · 2017-04-26archived copy

    California business entity record for New U Life Corporation C4017199 via a third-party mirror of Secretary of State data; BBB business profile (A- grade, not accredited, one unanswered complaint); trade-press company profile of October 2020 (Pleasant Hill, Lehi and Taipei operations, approximately 395,000 distributors claimed, approximately $60 million first-year sales, self-funded); industry-aggregator revenue estimates of $272M/$250M/$250M/$250M/$150M/$128M for 2020–2025 and a 2025 payout-ratio estimate of about 35%, all unaudited

    Not established by this document: The industry-aggregator revenue series ($272M/$250M/$250M/$250M/$150M/$128M for 2020–2025) and the ~35% payout-ratio estimate come from an unaudited trade aggregator; no single stable page carrying that whole series could be retrieved, so no URL is asserted for it.

  25. Better Business Bureau business profile, New U Life, 2623 Pleasant Hill Rd, Pleasant Hill, California (not BBB accredited)
    Company documentTier 3Better Business Bureauarchived copy
  26. Direct Selling News, "New U Life: From Local Shop to Global Brand," 1 October 2020 - approximately $60m first-year sales, sales force of 395,000, Pleasant Hill / Lehi / Taipei offices, self-funded
    ReportingTier 3Direct Selling News · 2020-10-01archived copy
Unable to verify

What we could not get

  • The exact entry-kit prices above the $199 tier. Sources conflict directly: one independent teardown gives $199/$499/$899 and two others give $199/$559/$999. Only the $199 basic tier is corroborated across all three, and this report does not silently pick a winner
  • The annual renewal position. The kits are described as including a one-year membership, which implies a charge after year one, but no source reviewed quantified it and no company page stating it could be located. It is a material hole in any break-even model
  • The current status and outcome of the internal-control litigation, Najjar v. Goldstein. The available docket reference dates to August 2019 and reports a preliminary injunction; nothing after that could be located
  • The outcomes of the two defamation suits the company filed against former distributors in February 2019. Neither resolution could be found in any source reviewed
  • The absence of any located action by overseas medicines regulators. The company has expanded into Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and no enforcement, product ban, safety alert or advertising ruling naming it was identified - but the enforcement portals of those regulators were not searched directly, so this is an absence of evidence and expressly not a clearance
  • The current distributor headcount. The figure of approximately 395,000 comes from a trade-press profile of 2020 and no more recent official number could be located; in this industry "distributor" typically counts anyone who ever enrolled, not anyone currently active
  • The revenue figures throughout this report. They are third-party unaudited estimates published by an industry aggregator, not company statements and not filed financials. The company is private and publishes no audited accounts. The trajectory is treated as directional and the precise dollar figures are not relied upon
  • The current retail and autoship prices of the product, the current status of the NDC listing (which one mirror shows with a firm-discontinued end-marketing date), the founder’s self-described homeopathy and herbalism credentials, the claimed sixteen-year pre-MLM retail history, and the live California Secretary of State status of the corporation

Not advice

This is independent analysis for decision-making, not legal, financial or investment advice. Allegations reported by third parties should be verified against primary court and regulatory records before any decision.

Who writes this

Researched by Claude. Reviewed by an editor.

Every report is researched and written by Claude, Anthropic’s AI assistant, from the company’s own plan documents, policies, terms and regulatory file - then reviewed before publication by Rob Fore, who checks the sources and the stage-label on every allegation.

  • Nine weighted dimensions, published with their weights
  • The editor checks the evidence and cannot change the number - the build rejects any page whose grade does not reconcile to its own arithmetic
  • Every affiliate position we hold is disclosed on the report it touches
  • No company has paid for a grade, and no report carries an affiliate link
Read the About page

Looking at something else?

Enter any company name or website. If a report exists it opens instantly; if not, we start one.

Try:
Common questions

New U Life - frequently asked

QIs SomaDerm FDA approved?
No, and this is the single most misunderstood fact about the company. The product is listed in the FDA National Drug Code directory under 61877-0007 in the marketing category "UNAPPROVED HOMEOPATHIC." An NDC listing is a self-reporting process in which a firm tells the FDA it manufactures or distributes a product and self-assigns a code; nothing is reviewed, nothing is tested and no claim is authorized. Listed is not approved, and it is not cleared either. The product’s own FDA-filed label states it verbatim: "This homeopathic product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for safety or efficacy. FDA is not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective." The company’s own consumer FAQ also says correctly that the product is not FDA approved - the false "FDA approved" claim documented in the record is a field-level distributor claim, cataloged by a private watchdog, not corporate copy.
QWhat did the FDA laboratory actually find in SomaDerm?
An FDA Forensic Chemistry Center summary report, Sample No. 1026141, on a product tested in January 2019, recorded "no evidence for the presence of hGH at a level greater than approximately 7 micrograms per gram," and no evidence of any drugs or poisons. Stage-label that carefully. It is a laboratory finding recorded in an FDA document. It is not a warning letter - no FDA warning letter to this company could be located in the agency’s database, including its 2019 health-fraud compilation - it was never sent to the company at all, and it was obtained and published by a private nonprofit watchdog which then complained to the FTC and the FDA. It is not a court finding and not an adjudication of anything. And the other half of the fact matters just as much: no enforcement action, no seizure, no injunction and no recall followed it in the years since. The laboratory result is consistent with the label’s own declaration of a "Somatropin 30X" dilution, which is thirty successive one-in-ten dilutions - a factor of 10^30, roughly a million-fold beyond the point at which a solution is statistically expected to retain a single molecule of the original substance.
QHow much do New U Life distributors actually earn?
The company publishes this itself, which is a real credit. Its 2023 earnings summary puts the average annual income across active distributors at $49.45. Some 99.44% of distributors sit at the Associate rank, where the average is $1.05 for the year. Promoter accounts for 0.3% at $502.08, and every rank above that holds under 0.1% of the field - Coach averages $11,359.06, Ambassador $37,143.04 and Diamond Ambassador $295,790.25. No median is published anywhere, which in a distribution this skewed flatters the typical experience considerably. The figures are also averages across distributors maintaining 140 PV in a rolling five-week window, so the number across everyone who ever bought a kit is lower still, and business expenses are expressly not deducted. The trend across cycles is downward: $117.15 as the all-distributor average in 2021, $49.45 in 2023.
QWhat did the 2020 DSSRC referral to the FTC and FDA lead to?
Nothing that could be located, in more than six years. DSSRC Case #16-2020 closed on 27 March 2020 with the body finding that the company had "repeatedly failed to adhere to its recommendations" from the earlier Case #8-2019 monitoring inquiry, recording continuing unsupported product-performance claims plus COVID-19 treatment and prevention claims by distributors, concluding that "systemic issues at the Company... could not be addressed in the context of industry self-regulation," and referring both the health claims and the earnings claims to the FTC and the FDA. Stage-label all of that: DSSRC is a private, industry-funded self-regulatory body administered by BBB National Programs. It has no government enforcement power, its decisions are not legal findings, and a referral is a referral rather than an agency action. As of this review, no FTC complaint, consent order or civil penalty and no FDA warning letter, seizure, injunction or recall against the company has been identified. That absence is as material as the referral and this report publishes both.
QIs New U Life a pyramid scheme?
No government body has found it to be one, and there is no FTC pyramid complaint, no consent order and no court judgment against the company anywhere. What exists is one independent MLM-plan reviewer’s structural argument that meaningful independent retail volume appears absent and that affiliate self-purchase is doing the qualifying work instead - that is a reviewer’s analysis and opinion, not a legal finding. The structural criticisms this report does make are specific and come from the plan itself. Binary team commissions pay $40 or $60 per matched cycle on a 600/400 PV basis, but only to a distributor holding 140 PV personally who has also personally sponsored at least two active affiliates each doing 140 PV; the unilevel matching bonus overrides those same binary commissions and so sits behind the identical gate. A distributor who sells only to outside customers is excluded from both streams at any volume, and is left with $45 per single bottle, $25 per autoship order and $520 on a forty-gel commercial order - real margins, but the secondary half of the plan by design.
Who wrote this report

Author, editor and publisher

C
Written by Claude AI
Reviewed by Rob Fore · Published by Listech Inc · July 31, 2026

This report was researched and written by Claude, Anthropic’s AI assistant, working from primary documents - New U Life’s own compensation plan, its policies and procedures, its terms of service, its income disclosure statement where one exists, and its regulatory and self-regulatory file. It was scored against nine weighted dimensions that are published in full, with their weights, on the methodology page.

Before publication it was reviewed by Rob Fore, who checks every source link, every figure against the document it came from, and every allegation against its stage-label - an investigation is not a finding, a warning letter is not an enforcement action, and a filed claim is not a verdict.

The editor does not set the grade. The published score is the weighted composite of the nine dimension scores, and the build refuses to emit a page where the two disagree by more than 0.06. A grade moves when the evidence moves it and not otherwise.

Rob Fore has marketed online since 1996, wrote Online MLM Marketing (2014), and is CEO of Listech Inc, the Nevada corporation that publishes this site. He holds affiliate positions in companies graded here - including LiveGood, which this site grades D, SendOutCards, which it grades C−, and the Home Business Academy, which it grades B−. Those positions are disclosed on the reports they touch, and changed nothing on this page.

About the author and our conflicts  ·  Contact the editor  ·  Corrections: corrections@opportunitygrade.com

Stay with it

Tell me if this grade changes

New U Life is graded D- as of July 31, 2026. Grades move when the evidence moves - a new income disclosure, a regulatory action, a rewritten compensation plan. Leave your address and you will get one email if this one does.

One email when the grade moves, and nothing else. We will never use your address to promote an income opportunity of any kind, we do not sell, rent or share the list, and it is stored on our own infrastructure rather than with any company graded here. Unsubscribe removes everything.

Right of reply

Corrections

Every factual claim on this page is sourced, and the ones we could not stand up are named in the unable to verify list above. If something here is wrong, we want to know, and we would rather hear it from New U Life than from a reader.

Write to corrections@opportunitygrade.com. Point at the specific sentence and send the document that contradicts it - a plan document, a filing, an income disclosure, a policy page. We will check it against the primary source, correct the page if it is wrong, and say in the report that it was corrected and when. A grade moves if the evidence moves it.

This address reaches a person, not a form. We do not require a takedown demand, an NDA or a lawyer to accept a correction, and we do not remove a report because a company disputes its conclusion - only because the underlying facts turn out to be wrong.

Other published reports

Every report is written to stand alone. Graded on the same nine weighted dimensions and the same six legal tests. Twelve of 107, spread across the grade bands.

See all 107 published reports →