Most of your criticisms to me come down to drawing a distinction without a difference, especially in terms of the legal definition of the pyramid scheme, or the fact that "none of them made claims that it would work for everyone." These schemes aren't targeted at us, because we understand the risks. The whole point of consumer protection law is to recognize that some people may not be in a position to figure things out, and that it can be colossally expensive to protect yourself or to try to recoup losses after the fact. The one company he cites where only about 7% of its people receive anything is a perfect example. Yes, people shouldn't be quite as credulous, but that doesn't give these companies a free pass to prey on people's wishful thinking and/or ignorance.