Amanda Morgan against Stuff
Case Number: 3833
Council Meeting: 2 February 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Photographs
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Amanda Morgan has complained about a two-part investigation by Stuff published on October 29 and 30, 2025. The articles were headlined “He sold the dream of a fizzy drink fortune but left a trail of angry people” and “‘They need to be stopped’: The fizzy drink business still selling the dream - and leaving more angry people behind”.
2. The investigation reports on the complaints of 15 Kiwi Beverage franchisees, who described ways in which the company’s founders, David Thexton and the complainant Amanda Morgan (who is Mr Thexton’s partner), had “sold a dream that turned sour” and left them out of pocket. They are angry with their treatment and shocked Mr Thexton is supposedly starting a new business consultancy firm.
The Article
3. Mr Thexton and Ms Morgan started a company making sugar-free soft drinks, but the articles say the franchisees were “deeply disillusioned” and “made little… without getting their money back”. They claim to have been “cut off from the company’s systems” and that Mr Thexton failed to communicate with them, provide marketing, and generally, honour his promises to them.
4. Mr Thexton and Ms Morgan refused to be interviewed for the articles, but Ms Morgan answered written questions from the reporter, denying most of the claims and accusing the franchisees of “deliberate and targeted attack on the good character of David and myself”. She accepted many franchises had failed but put it down to their lack of effort, covid, a tough economy, and their failure to follow the company’s strategy.
The Complaint
5. Ms Morgan describes the articles as “a direct attack on our integrity and honesty” and says key elements are untrue while other important points were omitted. “Several defamatory accusations were never put to us” and “the reporting was one-sided”. She says the stories were neither fair nor balanced. As such, the complaint will be considered largely under Principle (1), which says “Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view.”
6. The complainant says she and her partner were presented as “scammers” who ripped off the franchisees. The articles said the franchisees were “left broke” and the pair “need to be stopped”. She argued they sold the franchisees territory rights to sell a product under a legal contract and that does not constitute a scam. She says the journalist failed to report on why they would want the franchisees to fail when it meant it, they would “ruin our own business and lose everything”.
7. She says the claim that a second wave of franchisees were “left broke” is inaccurate. She accepts their franchises did not reach the expected returns but puts the blame on them and the economy. “All of the accusers have types of other income opportunities and assets… a main reason for their failure in the beverage franchise/distribution business was that they had other financial interests and income that took priority over selling beverages.”
8. Stuff ignored the contracts the franchisees had signed. The franchisees had failed to meet contractual obligations while the company had met all of theirs. “The journalist did not request or review the exit procedure outlined in our contracts, nor did he investigate which complainants actually followed the agreed process”. This was critical because the story repeatedly said the franchisees did not get their money back, after they’d paid for territorial rights to sell the soft drinks. She says the contract does not offer any right to reimbursement, but the franchisees get the money if they sell the franchise to a new owner.
9. The articles feature criticisms that the pair failed to provide marketing and refused requests for the franchisees to do their own social advertising. It also reported franchisees were angry they couldn’t give away more free fridges or set their own prices. She says this misunderstands the nature of franchising agreements, whereby the franchisees agree to buy into a “head office system” and “not act as an independent business”. The franchisees failed to do that. For example, their model was face-to-face marketing with customers, not advertising, so it is unfair for the franchisees to sign up and then complain about the lack of advertising.
10. She said she told the reporter they tracked the activity of the franchisees but instead he “relied solely on complainants’ claims regarding their efforts”. She said: “The journalist did not ask for this evidence and instead relied solely on complainants’ claims regarding their efforts”. He ignored her argument this was critical to the whole story – success required full-time work and the franchisees did not do the required work. He also ignored her request to interview an independent franchise expert.
11. The story quotes from the company’s brochure and Ms Morgan complains Stuff is selective. It quotes the line, it would be “easily possible to more than double or triple your sales after the first year… This will continue forever”. But it left out lines saying the franchisees would need to see 30+ customers per day to succeed and the average sale was $100.
12. Ms Morgan points to several factual errors in the original story – including that she is Mr Thexton’s partner, not wife, and their offices are in Papakura, not Pukekohe.
13. On more significant issues, she says one article claims the Companies Office is reviewing Mr Thexton’s eligibility to be a director and that is false. She denies they promised the franchisees would make “millions”. One article says, “franchise purchase price doubled when Mr Thexton told the franchisees they had to buy a delivery van specially imported from Australia.”. Ms Morgan says while they were told they needed a van to move the drinks, that did not change the purchase price, and it was the franchisee’s choice to buy a new van from overseas.
14. Further, the article said the franchisees were shocked Mr Thexton was “back in business with a new business consultancy: a consultancy service” and elsewhere that he was “moving on from fizzy drinks” and working on “a new venture – business consultancy”. Ms Morgan says Mr Thexton has been a consultant since 2002, so the claims are factually incorrect.
15. Ms Morgan also disputes a story told by one franchisee that he visited Mr Thexton at the factory one New Years day, but Mr Thexton had refused to come out and shake his hand. Ms Morgan says their offices always close at that time and “this is entirely fiction” and example of the fabricated stories that franchisee has made up to attack them online.
16. She told the reporter the franchisees have orchestrated “a deliberate and targeted attack” and the journalist failed to investigate her version of events.
17. Ms Morgan also complained that photographs of her and Mr Thexton were taken secretly, and Stuff must have been covertly observing them. She suspects a photo of Mr Thexton was altered to make him look “sinister”. The couple were unaware they were being photographed and this has caused them significant distress.
18. She said she had agreed to be interviewed in person but changed her mind when the reporter told her TV cameras would be coming and the story would appear on TV3. She found this intimidating and so decided to answer in writing instead.
19. In her final comment, Ms Morgan stressed the articles have caused significant personal and professional harm, that she’d told the reporter Mr Thexton was unwell, and she is “fearful of ongoing retaliation by the journalist and Stuff as a result of raising this complaint”.
The Response
20. Two Stuff editors responded to this complaint, one initially to Ms Morgan and one to the Media Council. We will draw from both their responses.
21. Stuff says the articles “were responsibly reported, investigative pieces concerning a matter of legitimate public interest: the experiences of individuals who purchased distribution rights to a beverage business and subsequently raised serious concerns about financial loss and unfulfilled promises based on their personal accounts”. The story relied on interviews with 15 people angry at the pair, “the majority of whom provided extensive supporting documentation”.
22. Regarding balance, Stuff says “Ms Morgan was given an opportunity to comment ahead of publication and chose to respond in writing. Her responses were reflected in the articles, and her position was clearly presented”. The editors said she was given right of reply on the key allegations. “While it is not always practical to relay every individual allegation - particularly when multiple sources are involved - the core claims were put to Ms Morgan, and her explanations were given due prominence”.
23. As one editor wrote, “her position was represented in both articles, with direct quotes and references to her explanations about the business model, Covid-19 impacts, and distributor performance. Her cooperation was explicitly acknowledged in the coverage”.
24. Stuff promptly corrected the factual errors, but said they were “minor” and did not materially affect the substance of the story. Neither article used the word “scam”. The franchisees made serious allegations, but they were all clearly attributed and balanced by Ms Morgan’s responses. Stuff denies a lack of fairness saying the stories were not predetermined or one-sided and a wide range of sources were interviewed. The reporter went back to Ms Morgan on some points, and they delayed publication to ensure the stories were accurate.
25. Ms Morgan had said the franchisee’s low business activity was key to the story and that was ignored. Stuff replies: “Your claim that distributor performance influenced outcomes was raised and specifically addressed by several interviewees who disputed it. This exchange of viewpoints was included in the article, and we consider it a fair representation.”
26. The response to the Media Council did not deal with Ms Morgan’s specific claims but the initial response dealt with some. In regard to the Companies Office, Stuff simply quoted the National Manager of Business Registries. The quote did not imply any conclusion had been reached. Stuff also says the reference that some franchisees were told they could make millions was “drawn from your own promotional material, which included phrases such as “a fabulous, serious, profitable opportunity” and projections that implied high earning potential. The reporting attributed these claims clearly to your brochure.”
27. Stuff denies any breach of privacy. The photos were taken from a public place and complied with standard editorial practice. None were altered. “We acknowledge the concerns expressed regarding the impact on Ms Morgan’s family and appreciate the sensitivities involved. We note, however, that the reporting relates to commercial activity involving members of the public, where there is legitimate public interest in scrutiny,” Stuff says.
The Discussion
28. The Media Council agrees the reporting about a successful businessman, a fledgling business in a globally competitive sector, and complaints from a significant number of franchisees is in the public interest. The public benefits when people can make complaints and they get to see how companies do business. While this can be uncomfortable for the people reported on, investigations of this nature are important. The question is whether this particular investigation breached any Media Council Principles.
29. To address the privacy complaint first, while the Council understands the complainant’s frustration that she was not asked for photos and instead Stuff chose to take photos of her and her partner in a clandestine manner, the photos were taken from a public place. This is not in breach of our Principles. The complainant had turned down an interview due to the presence of cameras, so it is reasonable Stuff chose the approach they did.
30. As for the “minor” inaccuracies, the Council agrees they were immaterial to the complainants’ core concerns and were promptly corrected by Stuff. We do not uphold on either Privacy or Inaccuracy.
31. Regarding the final comments by Ms Morgan, while Stuff did not get a chance to respond we think it is important to put on the record that Mr Thexton’s state of health bears no relevance to whether or not he should have been investigated by Stuff. Illness does not require media to stop an investigation when serious allegations have been made. Further, we think it is important to record that in the Media Council's experience the New Zealand media do not retaliate against people who complain.
32. On the whole, the articles provide balance. While the franchisees are given much more space than Ms Morgan and she is mostly demoted to the bottom of the articles, the articles are based on the concerns raised by the franchisees and there are many of them. Broadly, the franchisees complaints are that Mr Thexton and Ms Morgan promised more than they delivered and left them out of pocket and with franchises that had little value. Ms Morgan’s argument is that the failure of the franchises was due to the franchisees lack of effort, Covid-19, and a struggling economy and their story is familiar to many small business owners in New Zealand in recent years. Readers will see both those views reflected in the articles.
33. The problems with these articles are when we look beyond the broad-brush balance to the specific allegations made by the franchisees and consider what was included in the articles, and what was omitted. The question is whether the reporting is fair under Media Council Principles.
34. While Stuff argues all the serious allegations were clearly attributed to the franchisees, put to Ms Morgan, and her replies were reported – and in most instances this is true – it was not always the case. This speaks to Ms Morgan’s complaint that some serious accusations were never put to her, and the story gave the impression that they were dodgy operators who, as one quote said, needed to be stopped.
35. The second article says that Mr Thexton was giving up fizzy drinks and moving onto a new consultancy business, giving the impression he is abandoning the franchisees. Ms Morgan says he has been a business consultant since 2002. Stuff did not raise the consultancy with Ms Morgan and does not provide evidence to dispute her claim they got it wrong. The first article tells the memorable anecdote of Mr Thexton refusing to meet a franchisee on New Years day as he stood outside his office waiting for a handshake. Ms Morgan was never asked about this, so the story is told without balance. Ms Morgan in her complaint denies the whole story, saying they are never at the office at that time of year, and the franchisee has a history of telling falsehoods about them.
36. In a similar vein, Stuff writes “the franchise price doubled” for one franchisee when he was forced to buy an expensive van from overseas. This claim was never put to Ms Morgan, but in her complaint, she tells a different story. The Media Council cannot say which version of events is accurate, but the claim was not put to Ms Morgan and the franchisee’s version of events was reported as fact. Whatever the story of the van, it seems a long bow to say its purchase amounted to a doubling of the franchise price.
37. The Council also notes Stuff reported a claim from an unnamed Waikato couple: “They say they were promised the drinks would be cheaper than their Coke equivalents, there would be supply deals with big chains and they would have the well-known Foxton Fizz brand. They say none of these promises eventuated”. As Ms Morgan says, this challenges the couple’s honesty. But the accusations were never put to Ms Morgan. In her complaint, Ms Morgan says they were speaking to Foxton Fizz about a sugar-free drink but never about selling the existing product, as that would have undermined their sugar-free business model.
38. The second article’s standfirst says the second wave of franchisees were “left broke”, but that accusation was never put to Ms Morgan, who says in her complaint that all these franchisees had other sources of income, and this was precisely why they failed – the drink business wasn’t their full-time job. The franchisees dispute this, saying they worked hard and made little money, but none of them claim to be broke.
39. In one specific accusation, Stuff reports a franchisee paid $50,000 for a territory in two tranches but quit before the second payment was due and agreed a buy-out with Mr Thexton. The franchisee is reported as saying “Mr Thexton only paid him $10,000 of the agreed $25,000 and then stopped returning his phone calls”. It is a serious claim. Stuff asked Ms Morgan if she accepted the franchisee was cut off and had his territory sold on without having his fee refunded but did not put the specific allegation that Mr Thexton underpaid. As it happens, Ms Morgan replied to this franchisee’s exit “was amicable, we found someone else to buy his territory and we paid him the agreed amount”. Stuff reported only that Ms Morgan had said his “exit was amicable”. Clearly, the amount paid was contested but Ms Morgan’s claim was not reported. Other claims that Mr Thexton stopped a franchisee selling after four months and that he reneged on a deal for half of the Christchurch territory were reported but Ms Morgan was not given a right of reply.
40. Ms Morgan also asks if Stuff failed to understand some of the nuances of the franchising business and is concerned at some of her arguments that were omitted. This too goes to Fairness. For example, the franchisees argued the couple failed to deliver on marketing promises while Ms Morgan claimed they delivered all that was promised in the contract. The article stressed the franchisees didn’t “get their money back” when their franchises were failing but Ms Morgan says, “there was no contractual right to reimbursement”. It seems odd Stuff did not report on what the contracts say.
41. Ms Morgan was also asked specifically if they owed the franchisees money and she replies with a clear no, yet this was not reported. The Stuff reporter in his questions also says one franchisee claimed, “they were never paid any of their commissions” and Ms Morgan provides documents to show all commissions were paid. Stuff reports the commissions were paid, but stresses that amounted to only $8,325.19 for the year and does not reveal the franchisee had been proved wrong in their claim.
42. These details raise questions about the fairness of the reporting, and the Media Council has some sympathy for Ms Morgan’s frustration at the way the stories were framed, the available information that was left out, and the accusations that were not put to her. Stuff argues that not every claim can be raised in such a complex story, but it could have taken more care.
43. The Media Council endorses the public interest of the story and Stuff’s efforts to give voice to the franchisees’ concerns. This ruling should not be seen as taking sides. We do not have all the facts and so make no judgment on who’s telling the truth; that is left to the public. We appreciate that in complex investigations many claims and counter-claims need to be distilled to a readable form.
44. The number of reputation-damaging claims made without right-of-reply or context:
- the ‘new’ consultancy business,
- new year’s day handshake,
- contested contract details,
- the promise these drinks would be cheaper and Foxton Fizz would be involved,
- that a territory deal was reneged on,
- that agreed payments weren’t made,
- and marketing not delivered on,
and more – undermine the fairness of these articles. Added together, those errors and omissions suggest Stuff got somewhat lost in the details of this investigation and in the process ultimately failed to give the complainant a fair opportunity to comment. Therefore, the complaint is upheld under Principle (1).
Decision: The complaint is upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Bernadette Courtney
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote