Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-239 (2026)

Pyramid promotional schemes; misdemeanor; definitions; contracts void

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every person who contrives, prepares, sets up, operates, advertises or promotes any pyramid promotional scheme shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For the purposes of this section:

(1) "Compensation" means the transfer of money or anything of value.

"Compensation" does not mean payment based on sales of goods or services to persons who are not participants in the scheme and who are not purchasing in order to participate in the scheme;

(2) "Consideration" means the payment of cash or the purchase of goods, services, or intangible property;

(3) "Promotes" means inducing one or more other persons to become a participant; and

(4) "Pyramid promotional scheme" means any plan or operation by which a person gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation a majority of which is derived from the introduction of other persons into the plan or operation rather than from the sale or consumption of goods, services, or intangible property by a participant or other persons introduced into the plan or operation.

All contracts and agreements, now existing or hereafter formed, whereof the whole or any part of the consideration is given for the right to participate in pyramid promotional scheme programs, are against public policy, void and unenforceable.

Any violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute a prohibited practice under the provisions of § 59.1-200 and shall be subject to any and all of the enforcement provisions of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (§ 59.1-196 et seq.).

Code 1950, §§ 59.1-67.1, 59.1-67.2; 1970, c. 450; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 2008, cc. 791, 842.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–1999 · leading case: Love v. Durastill of Richmond, Inc., 408 S.E.2d 892 (Va. 1991).
Love v. Durastill of Richmond, Inc., 408 S.E.2d 892 (Va. 1991). · cites it 26× “Love claimed: (1) that the contract was void because (a) it was procured by fraudulent misrepresentations, and *188 (b) it was a pyramid promotional scheme proscribed by Code § 18.2-239; and (2) that Durastill breached its contract by failing “to provide her with…”
United States v. Gold Unlimited, Inc., 177 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 1999). “§ 39-17-506 (b) (1998); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-239(a) (Michie 1998); W.”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 374 S.E.2d 13 (Va. 1988). · cites it 11× “, a Nevada corporation with headquarters in Florida, is a “pyramid promotional scheme” within the purview of Code § 18.2-239. The issue was framed in a proceeding initiated by a bill of complaint filed by the Attorney General of Virginia against Douglas *300 Bell and others, 1…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-239(a): 3 cases
Love v. Durastill of Richmond, Inc., 408 S.E.2d 892 (Va. 1991). “Love claimed: (1) that the contract was void because (a) it was procured by fraudulent misrepresentations, and *188 (b) it was a pyramid promotional scheme proscribed by Code § 18.2-239; and (2) that Durastill breached its contract by failing “to provide her with…”
United States v. Gold Unlimited, Inc., 177 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 1999). “§ 39-17-506 (b) (1998); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-239(a) (Michie 1998); W.”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 374 S.E.2d 13 (Va. 1988). “, a Nevada corporation with headquarters in Florida, is a “pyramid promotional scheme” within the purview of Code § 18.2-239. The issue was framed in a proceeding initiated by a bill of complaint filed by the Attorney General of Virginia against Douglas *300 Bell and others, 1…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.