See poll.
The intent is that the first three options are of increasing specificity. #2 is a subset of #1, and #3 is a subset of #2. For example, some people may describe specific examples of Multi Level Marketing as “a scam”, even though courts have ruled that what they were doing was technically legal and many examples operate openly.
I voted for shenanigans, legal or not. Using the Amway example, if you become an Amway distributor and invest a lot of time, work and money, it’s possible to receive more money back than you put in. (Sounds a lot like deciding if something provides free energy). But this is not the typical result. That, coupled with the fact that most people have to be ‘tricked’ into going to an Amway presentation makes them a scam in my book, even if perfectly legal. I think Primerica uses much the same model.
I voted for the crime one. Caveat emptor. Even sometimes I don’t agree that the law is right. It was close with the previous category, though: the rule of law should adjudicate civil disputes. If it comes down to outright fraud, then count me as the previous category.