does not require that the rewards be completely unrelated to the sale of products. BurnLounge argues that the second prong of the Omnitrition test “requires that the rewards be completely unrelated to sales of bona fide products.” The second prong of the pyramid test requires the FTC to show that the scheme provides “the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users.” Id. at 781 (citation omitted). This test does not require that rewards be completely unrelated to product sales, and BurnLounge provides no support for its argument that the test should be interpreted this way. First, reading “completely” into the test would be inconsistent with the outcome in Omnitrition. See id. at 782 (<HOLDING>). Second, courts applying the
holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding that sales made to contractor who builds roads for the state are not sales to the state and therefore are not exempt holding omnitrition was likely a pyramid scheme because of its recruitment focus notwithstanding the fact that omnitrition made some retail sales holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events holding cfa applicable to the postrepossession conduct of assignee of retail installment auto sales contract