A few months ago, I saw a preview of Betting on Zero, the documentary that describes the high-stakes battle between controversial hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman and Herbalife. Ackman claimed that the company was nothing more than a pyramid scheme that bilks innocent people? Was it? I made a note to keep an eye out for it.

I had the chance to watch the film recently and it blew me away. (I’m hardly alone in holding this opinion.) The film is now available via video-on-demand. and I highly recommend it.

Not long ago, I reached out to the documentary’s director, Ted Braun. The following is an excerpt of our conversation:

PS: I really enjoyed Betting on Zero. What was your motivation for directing the film?

TB: I was motivated by a curiosity about the place of money in the American Dream. And I was surprised by the antagonists in the battle - Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager on a moral crusade, and Herbalife, a NY Stock Exchange listed nutrition company accused of being a massive fraud, a global pyramid scheme. My dramatic instinct was if we followed this conflict as it unfolded we’d have gripping film with fascinating characters whose struggles would illuminate something about money and our times. In the process I hoped we might also reveal something about how corporate Wall Street battles touch and affect millions of ordinary citizens here in the US and around the world. I wasn’t disappointed and hope audiences aren’t either.

PS: Were you surprised at the extent to which Herbalife will go to protect its brand and image? Or is this just par for the course in a capitalist economy?

TB: I thought I'd faced the most challenging circumstances of my professional life dealing with the Government of Sudan making Darfur Now. Dealing with Herbalife proved much more difficult.

Look, any company wants to protect its brand and imag—and should. But the means by which Herbalife has tried to protect itself is disturbing, and I hope not par for the course in a capitalist economy. I think a healthy capitalist economy depends upon and welcomes free, open inquiry, welcomes a free independent press—of which documentary filmmaking is a part. Herbalife has overtly and covertly tried to prevent our film from being seen and discussed. And they’ve done this after refusing our many, engaged open offers to participate in the making of the film.

When we began production I approached Herbalife in a spirit of curiosity. I was intrigued by their compelling perspective on this battle: namely that Ackman was a Wall Street market manipulator out to enrich himself by sinking their perfectly legitimate company. I wanted them to participate in the film and continued to engage them for two years. Ultimately Herbalife and its distributors declined to take part. Fair enough. The Government of Sudan facilitated the making of Darfur Now and its representatives participated in the film. I expected Herbalife would participate in Betting On Zero. I was disappointed. But there’s nothing that says you have to participate in the making of a documentary.

But when we announced we were premiering the film at the World Doc Competition at the Tribeca Film Festival, they turned around and attacked us - without ever having seen the film. Through a series of tweets from Hilary Rosen, one of their DC lobbyists who didn’t disclose her firm worked for Herbalife, Herbalife covertly tried to intimidate Jane Rosenthal, Robert DeNiro’s partner in Tribeca, from showing Betting On Zero at the Tribeca Film Festival. Since then Herbalife have actively tried to undermine the film’s credibility with falsehoods and baseless innuendo, suggesting for instance that Ackman paid for the film. And they continued to covertly try to prevent audiences from seeing the film. This culminated last October at the Double Exposure Film Festival in Washington DC, when another of their lobbying firms, Heather Podesta and Partners, purchased 173 seats to an otherwise sold out screening - then never claimed the tickets. Effectively denying DC residents who wanted to watch Betting On Zero from seeing it. That story was reported in Politico, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and on John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight.

In the end the FTC determined Herbalife is a company with a documented truth problem.

Was I surprised by Herbalife’s actions? Yes. And I continue to be. But in the end the FTC determined Herbalife is a company with a documented truth problem. In July they were charged by the FTC with four counts of false, deceptive and unfair business practices. The Chairwoman of the FTC described them as a company that had to start operating legitimately. So in that respect, my feelings of surprise have been vindicated by what the government found.

PS: Was it hard to maintain objectivity during filming? Given how few of its distributors actually make money, Herbalife seems hard to defend.

TB: The numbers on how few distributors make money is startling. But I’m always trying to get audiences into the shoes of different characters in a story. So during filming my focus is on understanding different people’s actions from their point of view. For me it isn't so much about an argument or a position that has to be defended, as it is about a human position that needs to be understood. Putting aside the desire to judge and instead taking up an empathetic posture is, to my mind, the basic work of storytelling. It’s a question of intellectual and dramatic principles. Making any film I try to maintain a genuine human curiosity about why people are doing what they’re doing, how they see the world, and what motivates them to act as they do. There’s real value in letting audiences inhabit another person’s life for a while. Even if audiences ultimately come to reject those values.

Wikipedia

PS: Why do you think that Michael O. Johnson stepped down last November?

TB: I’m not sure what to think. Michael Johnson characterized his stepping down as Herbalife’s Chairman and CEO as part of a normal succession plan that was long in the works. But a couple of months earlier he described the FTC settlement with Herbalife as an endorsement that their business model is sound. This was after the FTC charged Herbalife with four counts of false, deceptive and unfair business practices, said they needed to start operating legitimately, and required them to utterly restructure their business. So it’s hard to evaluate whether his account of stepping down as part of a long planned succession is accurate or if there's something else motivating his actions.

PS: Is Ackman right? How do you feel about his enlisting government agencies in his fight? Should “the market” decide if a company is operating illegally or not?

TB: Ultimately regulatory agencies and the court—not market—should determine whether a company is operating illegally. I don’t think Ackman every felt otherwise. He wanted the government to make the determination, not the market. If you’re wondering whether I'm concerned about the undue influence of people of great wealth in American politics and government, sure. Am I’m equally concerned, if not more, about the undue influence of corporations in American politics and government? Sure. But the market didn’t determine whether Herbalife was operating illegally. The FTC, after a thorough, independent, hermetically sealed investigation, found Herbalife to be in violation of the law. In pretty much the way Ackman alleged. And in a way that affirmed the experience of the members of Julie Contreras’s campaign.

Among the surprising discoveries of making this film was the breadth of the promise America holds out to its citizens and to immigrants who come here for a better life. The American Dream is not just about money. Justice and a fair functioning government are also a big part of the promise. Would the FTC have acted against Herbalife without Ackman's provocation in the marketplace? Since 1980 it hadn’t. So it’s hard to imagine he wasn’t a catalyst for exposing substantial false, deceptive and unfair business practices and provoking the FTC to set up a new standard not just for Herbalife but for the $160-billion-plus global MLM industry. That sounds like the kind of regulatory action most Americans hope their government would take to protect its citizens.