Nicole Daedone got 9 years for forced labor. Her supporters say she was punished for running a weird sex company.
Background
Nicole Daedone, founder of the "orgasmic meditation" company OneTaste, was sentenced to nine years in federal prison on March 30. A jury in Brooklyn convicted her of forced labor conspiracy last June after a five-week trial. Co-defendant Rachel Cherwitz, OneTaste’s former sales director, got six and a half years. Daedone was ordered to forfeit $12 million and pay $890,000 in restitution to seven victims.
1. She Destroyed Lives (Prosecutors, Victims, Judge Gujarati)
Nine women testified about being coerced into sex acts with investors, working for no pay, and being too psychologically trapped to leave.
The judge called it "egregious, insidious" and said Daedone showed no remorse. Judge Diane Gujarati noted the victims suffered "long-lasting, if not irreparable" harm. Prosecutors had asked for the 20-year statutory maximum. The nine years Daedone received was less than half of what the government wanted.
The testimony was devastating. Nine former employees described OneTaste as cult-like. One victim, Michal, told the court her 10 months there left her sexually traumatized, buried in debt, and suicidal. Members were coerced into sexual acts with prospective investors and clients, and worked for little or no pay—sometimes for over a decade. Many were survivors of sexual trauma before they joined.
This wasn’t wellness. It was exploitation dressed up as empowerment. Prosecutors argued Daedone and Cherwitz targeted vulnerable women dissatisfied with their sex lives and used economic pressure, surveillance, indoctrination, and psychological abuse to control them. The $12 million Daedone made selling her stake in 2017 was, in the government’s view, proceeds of the crime.
2. This Prosecution Sets a Dangerous Precedent (Reason, Defense Attorneys, Dershowitz)
There was no violence, no confinement, and no withheld documents. The government just decided that social pressure inside a weird company counts as "forced labor."
Daedone was a bully, not a criminal. Reason magazine called it "the Mean Girls theory of human trafficking." Their framing: grown women with freedom of movement, college degrees, and plenty of other options were legally rendered victims of a serious federal crime because they feared social exclusion. No one accused Daedone of violence, physical confinement, or withholding identity documents—the traditional markers of trafficking.
Her "crime" was running a weird business. The defense argued Daedone was a feminist entrepreneur prosecuted for running an unconventional business. More than 200 people submitted character letters to the court. Van Jones called her "a woman of uncommon wisdom, grace and moral courage." OneTaste’s current CEO Anjuli Ayer called the verdict "a terrifying day for freedom." Alan Dershowitz has indicated plans to seek a presidential pardon.
The legal precedent worries civil liberties advocates. If psychological pressure and fear of community rejection constitute "forced labor," the statute could reach into religious organizations, multilevel marketing companies, demanding startups, even academic departments. Reason argued the government is punishing "sex-tinged antics" under a statute designed for human trafficking.
3. Both Things Can Be True (Legal Analysts, amNewYork)
Daedone may be guilty and the prosecution may still be setting a terrible precedent.
The harm was real—the legal theory is novel. amNewYork published an op-ed arguing the case should concern every American, not because Daedone is innocent, but because the forced labor statute was stretched beyond its original purpose. One outlet called it the "first brainwashing conviction in US history." Whether you see that as justice or overreach depends on where you draw the line between manipulation and coercion.
Nine years is a serious sentence for a nonviolent crime. Prosecutors asked for 20. The judge gave 9. That gap suggests even the court recognized limits to how far this theory should go. But 9 years is still longer than many sentences for assault, fraud, or manslaughter. The severity reflects the judge’s view of the harm, not necessarily the strength of the legal framework.
The appeal will test the boundaries. Daedone’s lawyers plan to challenge the conviction. The core question on appeal is whether psychological coercion—absent physical force, confinement, or document seizure—can sustain a forced labor charge. The answer will define how far prosecutors can push trafficking statutes into the territory of manipulative but technically voluntary organizations.
Where This Lands
Daedone exploited vulnerable people. The victims’ testimony makes that clear. On the other hand, the legal theory used to convict her—that social pressure and psychological manipulation amount to forced labor—is genuinely novel, and civil liberties advocates have real concerns about where it leads. Where this lands depends on whether the appeal court treats this as a case about what Daedone did or a case about what "forced labor" means.