What Is The Case?
A Visionary Start
OneTaste began in 2004 in San Francisco as a small community focused on helping individuals flourish through workshops and innovative practices. For nearly a decade, the company operated like a close-knit collective, offering transformative experiences to a modest audience.
Everything changed in 2012, when leadership made a bold decision to expand its reach. Over the next five years, OneTaste grew rapidly, teaching a meditation practice called Orgasmic Meditation (OM). This practice, though unconventional, empowered individuals, improved relationships, and brought healing to thousands.
By 2017, OneTaste had hosted 35,000 attendees at workshops, garnered tens of millions of views on free educational content, and attracted researchers from institutions like MIT and UCLA to study OM’s benefits. The company’s annual revenue reached $12 million, with operations in over 25 cities across the United States and Europe.
What Is OM?
Orgasmic Meditation is a structured, 15-minute practice involving two consenting partners. One partner strokes the clitoris of the other with meditative focus. The result? Healing, empowerment, and personal growth.
OM’s benefits were undeniable for many. Hundreds of testimonials and scientific studies have demonstrated its potential to address mental health challenges, enhance emotional well-being, and build resilience—comparable to the effects of psychedelic therapies.
The Media Storm
In June 2018, everything changed. Bloomberg Businessweek published a sensational article by journalist Ellen Huet, leveling unverified allegations against OneTaste, its co-founder Nicole Daedone, and head of sales Rachel Cherwitz.
The article, released during the height of the #MeToo movement, painted OneTaste in a damning light, claiming criminal misconduct without substantiated evidence. The fallout was immediate: public outcry, reputational damage, and a sudden investigation by the FBI.
The Journalist’s Failings
Huet’s article has since been debunked for its lack of rigor and reliance on anecdotal accounts. The story omitted critical facts, ignored scientific research supporting OM, and failed to present balanced perspectives from OneTaste’s thousands of satisfied participants.
In a troubling twist, this same journalist later appeared as a commentator in a Netflix “true crime documentary,” discussing an active FBI investigation—a conflict of interest that raises serious ethical questions about the media’s role in shaping public perception.
The Cost of Bad Journalism
The Bloomberg article not only destroyed a thriving business but also weaponized public sentiment against two women who had dedicated their lives to empowerment and healing.
The FBI Investigation
Within months of the Bloomberg article, the FBI launched an investigation into OneTaste. For five years, the government poured resources into the case, with little to show for it.
In 2023, an indictment was handed down, charging Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz with a single count: conspiracy to commit forced labor. This charge is unprecedented—never in U.S. history has this accusation been brought without accompanying substantive crimes or direct evidence.
Key Facts About the Indictment:
• A “Victimless” Conspiracy: No forced labor was identified, and no victims have come forward.
• A 12-Year Alleged Conspiracy: The indictment spans 2006–2018, even though the co-defendants didn’t meet until 2007 and Daedone sold the company in 2017.
• Unusual Timing: The indictment was filed five years after the alleged conspiracy ended.
Prosecutorial Misconduct:
Serious issues of misconduct have plagued the case, including:
• Holding privileged documents for 30 months without notifying the defense.
• Encouraging witnesses to destroy evidence and bypass legal disclosure requirements.
• Seizing funds based on false statements in warrant applications.
What’s Really Happening?
Despite thousands of hours of investigation, the government’s case is vague, confusing, and lacks concrete evidence. Prosecutors have repeatedly suggested that OneTaste look to the media to “find out” what crimes were being investigated.
The financial burden of defending against this investigation has destroyed the company, depleted resources, and damaged reputations.