Nicole Daedone, founder of the California-based company OneTaste, and former sales director Rachel Cherwitz were convicted on June 9, 2025, by a Brooklyn federal jury for forced labor conspiracy and related charges. The conviction concluded a five-week trial that revealed patterns of economic, sexual, and psychological coercion within OneTaste, a company known for promoting “orgasmic meditation” as a form of women’s wellness. The verdict highlights legal concerns regarding the exploitation alleged within wellness organizations operating under the guise of empowerment and personal growth.
Details of the Trial and Charges
The federal jury in Brooklyn found Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz guilty of conspiracy to commit forced labor, along with additional related charges. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that OneTaste used manipulative tactics to coerce employees and clients into performing labor under exploitative conditions. Testimonies highlighted how financial pressures, emotional manipulation, and sexual coercion were employed to maintain control over individuals involved with the company.
Patterns of Coercion Within OneTaste
The trial testimony and evidence revealed a systemic pattern of economic, sexual, and psychological coercion. Witnesses described environments where employees and participants were pressured to invest significant time and money into OneTaste’s programs and products, often under threats or implied consequences for noncompliance. The court heard accounts of sexual exploitation framed within the company’s wellness practices, raising serious concerns about consent and abuse of power in such settings.
Background on OneTaste and Orgasmic Meditation
Founded by Nicole Daedone, OneTaste marketed orgasmic meditation as a method to enhance female wellness and improve personal relationships. The company rapidly expanded through workshops, training sessions, and sales of proprietary products. However, its unconventional approach to sexual wellness and internal management style prompted scrutiny from former members and legal authorities. Critics alleged that despite its empowering public image, OneTaste operated with a hierarchical culture that facilitated exploitation.
Legal and Social Implications
The conviction of OneTaste’s leadership underscores pressing legal questions about the regulation of wellness organizations, particularly those blending intimate practices with commercial enterprise. Legal experts note that the case could set a precedent for how forced labor laws are applied in contexts involving psychological and sexual coercion disguised as empowerment. Advocacy groups emphasize the need for increased transparency and stronger protections for individuals involved in similar wellness programs.
Responses and Reactions
- From the defense: Daedone and Cherwitz have not publicly commented following the verdict; their legal teams are expected to file appeals.
- Victims and advocacy groups: Numerous former employees and participants welcomed the verdict, viewing it as validation of their experiences and an important step toward justice.
- Industry impact: Wellness industry leaders expressed concerns over reputational damage but stressed the importance of ethical standards.
Conclusion
The conviction of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz marks a significant development in addressing exploitation within the wellness industry. It highlights the challenges regulators and society face in balancing innovative wellness practices with safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. As the case proceeds through potential appeals, it remains a focal point for ongoing discussions about ethical boundaries and legal accountability in alternative health and personal development sectors.
The conviction of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz marks a significant development in addressing exploitation within the wellness industry. It highlights the challenges regulators and society face in balancing innovative wellness practices with safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. As the case proceeds through potential appeals, it remains a focal point for ongoing discussions about ethical boundaries and legal accountability in alternative health and personal development sectors.