LETTER TO THE GUARDIAN

Dear Sirs, 

​

Complaint regarding an article dated 23 July 2024 titled “Suppliers to top essential oil  brand left unpaid and afraid after abuse inquiry” written by Rachel Fobar (the “Article”) 

​

1. We refer to the Article, and to the letter from Ms Sara George, a Partner of Sidley Austin LLP (“Sidley Austin”), to Ms Fobar dated 10 June 2024 regarding the investigation which Sidley Austin conducted into allegations raised in relation to doTERRA, a copy of which is enclosed (the “Letter”). Ms George also sent an email to Ms Fobar prior to the Letter dated 6 June 2024 at 2.08pm (the “Email”). 

​

2. We write to raise a formal complaint under the Guardian’s Editorial Code of Practice (the “Code”) and Guidance (the “Guidance”) regarding the accuracy of a number of critical statements made in the Article, as set out below. We have copied this to your legal department for their information. 

​

Relevant Parts of the Code and the Guidance 

3. The Code sets out the professional editorial and ethical standards that the Guardian expects all journalists, including freelancers and external contributors, to follow. The Guidance expands on and gives additional guidance about the Code. We set out below for ease of reference the relevant parts of the Code and the Guidance of which the Article is in breach. It goes without saying that this Code and the Guidance should not be more honoured in the breach.

​

Sidley Austin LLP is a limited liability partnership formed and registered under the laws of the State of Delaware. The offices listed above (other than London) are offices of associated Sidley Austin partnerships.  A list of names of partners in the partnership is available at 70 St Mary Axe, London, EC3A 8BE. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 79075. 

​

Accuracy 

4. Section 1 of the Code relates to Accuracy, and it requires journalists to “take care not  to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including  headlines not supported by the text.”. Whilst free to editorialise and campaign, a  publication must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.  

​

5. The Guidance further states that journalists should take care to be accurate. Significant  errors must be corrected as soon as possible and if a piece of journalism misleads it  should be clarified. Journalists working in news “should always strive to be fair and  objective in their reporting…”. 

​

Verification 

6. Section X of the Guidance states that trust in the authenticity and reliability of  journalists’ sources is essential, and journalists should be “tenacious in seeking reliable  corroboration…they should state the level of substantiation they have been able to  achieve (eg “the Guardian has been unable to independently verify the facts”).” 

​

The Article  

7. The damaging narrative presented in the first section of the Article is that there are  “more than 70” women sorters of frankincense based in the Togdheer region in central  Somaliland who supplied frankincense to doTERRA and who “diligently participated”  in doTERRA’s “abuse” investigation into allegations raised in relation to doTERRA,  but who were then placed in “a lot of danger” as a result of doing so. 

​

8. This narrative is encapsulated in the Article’s title “Suppliers to top essential oil brand  left unpaid and afraid after abuse inquiry”, and in its standfirst “women who sorted  frankincense told to change their story ‘or face consequences’ in doTERRA’s  investigation”.  

​

9. However, there are a number of significant inaccuracies throughout the Article, in  breach of the Code, each of which critically undermine this narrative: 

a. Firstly, contrary to the standfirst of the Article (“women who sorted  frankincense told to change their story ‘or face consequences’ in doTERRA’s  investigation”), and to the first sentence of the second paragraph  (“…doTERRA…launched an investigation into its frankincense supplier….”),  the investigation was not conducted by doTERRA. In fact, Sidley Austin, which  is a global law firm, was commissioned by doTERRA to conduct the  investigation, which was led by Ms George. The Guardian and Ms Fobar were  well aware of the independent nature of the investigation, as made clear to them  on the first page of the Letter:

​

“The Investigation was fully independent and doTERRA did not seek to  influence my preliminary findings nor my preliminary recommendations. Those  recommendations I have made were accepted and implemented.”  

​

b. Second, the standfirst falsely suggests that it was doTERRA who told women  to “change their story ‘or face consequences’”. This is wrong – no one at  doTERRA (or, for the avoidance of doubt, Sidley Austin) told any interviewee  in the investigation to change their story, or otherwise sought to influence them  in any way. Indeed, the Article itself appears deliberately to confuse and  conflate the alleged threats made by Barkhad Hassan, the owner of Asli Maydi, and/or his “associates”, with threats made by doTERRA. 

​

c. Third, the following sentences wrongly state that women sorters of  frankincense in Somaliland either worked for doTERRA, or that they supplied resins to doTERRA:

 

i. “Suppliers to top essential oil brand left unpaid and afraid after abuse  inquiry” (the title of the Article); 

​

ii. “An investigation into the abuse of women working to supply  frankincense to a leading US essential oils brand built on ethical  sourcing has left workers unpaid and frightened, with some saying that  they were told to change their stories “or face the consequences”) (the  first paragraph); 

​

iii. “Last year doTERRA…launched an investigation into its frankincense  supplier in Somaliland after reporting by the Fuller Project uncovered  allegations of serious abuses, including sexual harassment and assault.  Many women hired as frankincense sorters said they were routinely  underpaid…” (the second paragraph); and 

​

iv. “Crucially, [Beeyo Maal] has given them power to earn their own  money after years at the mercy of an employer who they say routinely  underpaid them. Working for doTERRA, the women said they made  about 10,000 Somaliland shillings…” (the twelfth paragraph). 

​

Further, and compounding this serious error, Ms Fobar repeatedly falsely  suggests throughout the Article that it was therefore doTERRA which had the  obligation to pay women sorters a sufficient wage and to make payment of back  wages, when in fact, as was known to the Guardian and Ms Fobar, this was, and  could only have been, Asli Maydi’s responsibility: 

​

i. “But some of the women who say they worked for Asli Maydi and its  owner, Barkhad Hassan….”

​

ii. “And yet more than a year after doTERRA promised it would investigate,  former Asli Maydi workers have not been paid their missing wages…”; 

​

iii. “Although doTERRA “paid considerably more than the then market  value” for the frankincense resin it sourced through Asli Maydi, some  female sorters “were likely to have been paid an amount insufficient to  meet their basis needs””; and 

​

iv. “…they [doTERRA] have not made any amends”. 

​

Each of the statements above are inaccurate because: 

i. None of the women sorters worked for doTERRA. doTERRA has never  had any employees in Somaliland, and therefore it has paid no wages1.  doTERRA does not therefore owe any “missing” wages to women  sorters. Rather, doTERRA purchased resins from its third party  supplier, Asli Maydi, and it took delivery at the port of Berbera in  Somaliland. It was Asli Maydi which contracted with women sorters within Somaliland, and which therefore had obligations to pay them  properly. doTERRA has no records of who worked for Asli Maydi or  what they were paid because it did not employ them. However,  doTERRA did pay Asli Maydi considerably more than the then market  value of the resins. It did so in order to ensure that those further down  in the supply chain (i.e. those working for Asli Maydi) could be paid in  accordance with the fair and on-time payments requirements set out in  the doTERRA Supplier Code of Conduct, which formed part of its  contractual arrangements with Asli Maydi. 

​

ii. No resins sorted by the women in the Togdheer region (in the Burao  warehouse) were supplied, either directly or indirectly, to doTERRA or  used in doTERRA products. This too was made clear to you and Ms  Fobar prior to publication in: 

​

a. the Email which stated: “So that there should be no  

misunderstanding on your part, the women you refer to  

as having been in contact with me were not employed in  

a warehouse supplying resins to doTERRA. doTERRA 

1 This was made abundantly clear to you and Ms Fobar prior to publication on page 9 of the Letter, in answer to  the question “Has doTERRA paid the former Asli Maydi harvesters and sorters the back wages they say they’re  owed? doTERRA has never had any employees in Somaliland and therefore it has paid no wages. It purchased  resins from its supplier, Asli Maydi and took delivery at the port of Berbera. It has exercised its right to  

terminate its supplier agreement with Asli Maydi.”did not benefit from their labour. Resins sorted by them  were not used in any doTERRA product.”; and

b. the Letter on page 3, which stated that the circumstances  

of the women sorters in Burao (i.e. in Togdheer) were  

different to others (for example in Erigavo, in the Sanaag  

region) because the resins they sorted were “not supplied  

to doTERRA and doTERRA did not benefit from their  

labour”. The reason for this was that when tested by  

doTERRA, it was apparent that these resins contained a  

toxic chemical, methoxydecane, which could not be used  

in doTERRA’s products.  

​

Therefore, the women who the Article says participated in the  investigation but were placed in danger as a result never sorted resins  which were ultimately supplied to doTERRA.  

​

It is also for this reason that Saynab Faarax Diiriye, who was referred to  in the Letter as ‘Complainant S’ and on whose evidence the Article  heavily relies, was not involved in the doTERRA supply chain – she is  also based in Burao, in the Togdheer region. She only therefore had a  peripheral connection with the investigation as a result.

​

Fourth, the Article contains the following quote from Saynab Faarax Diiriye, who  purports, according to the Article, to “represent a group of more than 70 female  frankincense sorters in Togdheer” – “we agreed to take part in the investigation and  interviews believing that our interviews would be kept strictly confidential and secured  as promised”. 

​

This is false. As the Letter made clear, there was nowhere near 70 interviews  conducted of women in Burao, in the Togdheer region. In fact, only 12 women  in Burao came forward to the investigation for interview. Of these, 5 interviews were conducted by the local investigator who was later assaulted, of which only  4 were women3. There has been no explanation, including from Saynab Faarax  Diiriye to the investigation, as to why more than three times the number of  women in Burao interviewed by the investigation claimed in the Letter, and  more than six times the number of women in Burao interviewed claimed in the  Article who apparently have had their alleged ‘interviews’ leaked and require.

  

This was made clear on page 9 of the Letter. Ms George first spoke to Saynab Faarax Diiriye directly because  she was one of very few women who the investigation had interviewed in the Burao region – she was contacted  to make sure that she had not experienced any threats following the assault on the investigation’s researcher.  Saynab Faarax Diiriye did not represent to Ms George that she had received any such threats. See footnote 1 of the Letter. 

 

This issue was pointed out to the Guardian and Ms Fobar in the Letter, however, no mention of them was included in the Article.  

​

We would also point out that Saynab Faarax Diiriye previously made a written demand to Ms George for payment of $71,000 to pay for ‘security’ for women  sorters who were in purported danger as a result of leaks in the investigation (the text of which was set out in full on page 6 of the Letter). That $71,000  was stated to be for security guards, new offices, relocating women, and phones  and internet, all of the things that the Article states that the Togdheer sorters  ultimately arranged for themselves in December 2023.  

​

In that demand, however, Saynab Faarax Diiriye purported to represent only 59  other women in Burao. This is clearly very different to the “more than 70” that  Saynab Faarax Diiriye now claims to represent as set out in the Article. We would therefore question whether Ms Fobar properly corroborated Saynab  Faarax Diiriye’s account that she represents more than 70 women sorters, each of whom participated in interviews which were then leaked, as Ms Fobar is required to do under the Guidance. In fact, the investigation received a complaint that Saynab Faarax Diiriye had advanced claims for payment on behalf of other women without their knowledge or consent. Other women whom Saynab Faarax Diiriye purported to represent also contacted the  Investigation following the termination of doTERRA’s relationship with Asli  Maydi. None of them alleged that they had been threatened with or subjected to violence. They did however, represent that they had been told by Saynab  Faarax Diiriye that they would be given compensation if they made claims. 

​

Fifth, the Article states that “one local investigator was assaulted, George says, and  his laptop and cellphone, ostensibly containing interview notes or recordings, were  stolen but never recovered”.  

​

This is false. Ms George said nothing of the sort. What she said in the Letter  (on page 5), as is the case, is that:  

​

“One of the local researchers was physically assaulted and his laptop and  mobile telephone were stolen. Two of his six assailants were subsequently  convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. An award of compensation  was ordered in his favour by the sentencing judge. Neither the laptop nor the  mobile telephone have been recovered. doTERRA supported the injured  researcher throughout the criminal proceedings and during his recuperation. 

​

Whilst the Article did acknowledge Ms George’s point that “no male or female witness  has ever alleged to the independent investigation that their own interview has been leaked to Barkhad Hasan and  his associates”, the Article failed to engage with the issue set out above. 

​

Including by speaking directly to any, some or all of these women sorters herself. This was not accurately reported in the Article.  Moreover, and for the avoidance of doubt, the true position is that no interview notes were taken by the local investigator on his laptop. There were no recordings on the mobile telephone. Any recordings on the laptop had been uploaded and deleted before the assault and theft. 

​

Sixth, the Article states that Saynab Faarax Diiriye reported incidents of threats to  women interviewees to Ms George and that she “promised them security”. This  statement is inaccurate.  

​

In fact, following the assault on the local investigator, all the witnesses with  whom he had spoken were contacted either by Ms George or one of the  investigation’s lawyers in Somaliland to ascertain whether they had been  threatened or harmed and to encourage them to report any approaches to the  police. The reason for this precaution was the concern that the local investigator might have been under surveillance by his assailants for some time (and not  because his laptop contained investigation materials). 

​

In every case where there was an individual considered to be vulnerable or at  risk, doTERRA was asked by the investigation to fund personal security,  relocation and safety measures, and those costs were duly met.  

​

However, when Ms George spoke with both Saynab Faarax Diiriye and another  woman, Mona Ahmed Ali, neither of them requested security for themselves.  Saynab Faarax Diiriye did not represent to Ms George that there had been any  threats of physical violence to her or anyone else. 

​

Subsequently, Saynab Faarax Diiriye made a written request to Ms George for  payment of $71,000, as set out above and in the Letter (she did not request  security, rather she demanded cash payments). No other woman has contacted  the investigation helpline asserting that they needed such protection. Ms  George therefore replied to her in writing as follows: 

​

“Such support and assistance as doTERRA is willing to provide will be provided to individuals only and not to representatives, intermediaries or organisations.  The assistance will be provided directly to an affected individual in confidence.  The support will be tailored to the specific risks to the individual, which will be assessed with the assistance of our security and legal experts in Somaliland.  The nature of the support provided will be fully bespoke to the individual circumstances and will not be discussed with or disclosed to anyone else. 

​

Threats of Legal Action 

The individual will be afforded access to a specialist counsel identified by  doTERRA at no cost to themselves.

​

Personal Security 

Personal security arrangements can be made where necessary to protect an  individual identified as being at risk of personal harm. Those arrangements  should be requested in person by the affected individual to a specially trained  Somali-speaker accessed through the helpline. 

​

Cash payments will not be made” (original emphasis). 

It is therefore clear from the correspondence quoted above that there was no  promise of security made by Ms George to Saynab Faarax Diiriye which did not then materialise. The quote from Ms George purportedly taken from a recording  of a telephone call also does not support this – Ms George was clearly and  rightly concerned about the security of any women who may be threatened with  violence and was trying to establish who had been so threatened that needed  security guards urgently. 

​

Seventh, the Article states that Saynab Faarax Diiriye wrote in an email to Ms George that “women who have diligently participated in the investigation have faced a lot of  danger”. In fact, the 12 women in this group provided identical answers to every  question in interview. Most also anticipated questions which had not been asked. The  interviewers raised their concerns that these 12 sorters appeared to have been coached  as to how to answer the questions. The interviews conducted at this location were  therefore considered by the investigation to lack integrity and no reliance was placed  upon them by the investigation. 

​

Eighth, the Article falsely states that “None of the women sorters [who form part of the  Beeyo Maal cooperative] participated in the Sidley Austin investigation, says [Amina]  Souleiman, whose charity has supported Beeyo Maal”. This statement is inaccurate  because the investigation did interview some of these women (who are based in  Erigavo, which produce resins ultimately supplied to doTERRA).

 

Ninth, the Article states that “several of the sorters involved say they were never  contacted. “They were happy to participate but for some unknown reason the  investigating team didn’t go to them” [Amina Souleiman] says.”. Whilst the Article  does include Ms George’s statement that attempts were made by the investigation to  contact known victims, it omits to mention the key point raised in the Letter, which was  that the investigation set up a dedicated phoneline which complainants could use to  contact the investigators directly and in confidence. The phoneline was manned from  the UK by trained Somali-speaking investigators who recorded and translated  testimony and identified further lines of inquiry. The evidence was anonymised before  transmission. Pre-paid mobile telephones were also provided to potential witnesses in  Somaliland to enable them to speak to an investigator outside of the jurisdiction in  privacy. A social media campaign and local media campaign was also run to raise  awareness of the Investigation, which resulted in hundreds of witnesses being interviewed by investigators. The investigation therefore created every opportunity for  sorters to contact the investigation and speak to them in confidence had they wished to. 

​

Finally, despite the Article leading (in the headline and opening two paragraphs) with  the statements that the Investigation followed after: “reporting by the Fuller Project  uncovered allegations of serious abuses, including sexual harassment and assault”, it deliberately failed to make clear (as is the case, and as was stated categorically on page  10 of the Letter) that the evidence did not support the account of rape that had been made. Nor indeed any other allegation of sexual harassment and assault made by the  Fuller Project. 

​

It is clear from the above that there are significant inaccuracies and false and misleading statements in the Article, notwithstanding that Ms George had made the correct position clear to the Guardian and Ms Fobar in the Letter prior to the publication of the Article.  Whilst the Article does include some of the points raised in the Letter, it does so in a misleading way and simply ignores many of the critical points made in rebuttal of Ms  Fobar’s allegations. It is clear that Ms Fobar has failed to observe the requisite standards of accuracy and objectivity referred to above. 

 

We therefore request, pursuant to Section 1 of the Code, that the statements identified above be corrected and that these corrections be published in the Guardian’s corrections and clarifications column. While we do not wish to stand in the way of lawful reporting that is both accurate and responsible, for the reasons set out above, that is clearly not the case here. Accordingly, pending the correction of the Article, it goes without saying that it should be removed immediately from your website. 

​

In the meantime, we reserve all of our rights and those of our client, doTERRA  International LLC, including to raise further complaints in relation to the Article.

 

In  the event that matters need to be escalated, we ask you to ensure that all journalistic  records (notes, recordings, and editorial decision-making processes) are fully and  properly preserved. 

​

Yours faithfully,  

Sidley Austin LLP 

Cc: Stephen Godsell, General Counsel, Guardian Media Group Plc  (Stephen.godsell@theguardian.com) 

Encs: the Letter and the Email