Editing Landmark Worldwide (section)

=== Accusations of being a cult ===
Landmark has faced accusations of being a [[cult]].{{r | CSIndy_2019-07-24 | Spears_2017-03-30 }}<ref name=Barker_2004 /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Loomis |first=Ronald N. |date=24 March 1996 |title=Cult Friction |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/hartford-courant/170378752/ |access-date=15 April 2025 |work=Hartford Courant |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref>{{ r | Hill_2003}} Several commentators unrelated to Landmark have stated that because it has no single central leader, is a [[secular]] (non-religious) organization, and tries to unite (and re-unite) participants with their family and friends (rather than isolate them) that it does not meet many of the characteristics of a cult.{{ r | CSIndy_2019-07-24 | Spears_2017-03-30 | Toutant }}

Landmark has threatened and pursued lawsuits against people who have called or labeled it such, including individuals ([[clinical psychology]] professor [[Margaret Singer]]), magazines ([[Elle (magazine)|''Elle'']], [[Self (magazine)|''Self'']], and ''Now'') and organizations ([[Cult Awareness Network]]).{{ r | CSIndy_2019-07-24 | NYMag_2001-07-09 | PNT_2000-10-19 }} After Singer wrote a book, ''[[Cults in Our Midst]]'', in which she mentioned Landmark as a controversial [[New Age]] training course, Landmark sued Singer.{{ r | PNT_2000-10-19 }} The suit was resolved when Singer agreed to provide a sworn statement that Landmark is not a cult or sect.{{ r | PNT_2000-10-19 }} Singer stated that she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.{{ r | PNT_2000-10-19 }} In 1997, Landmark sued Cult Awareness Network (CAN) after they made statements alleging or implying that Landmark was a cult.{{ r | PNT_2000-10-19 }} That suit was resolved when CAN stated that it has no evidence that Landmark is a cult.{{ r | PNT_2000-10-19 }}

In 2004, it was revealed that Landmark had paid French anti-cult expert [[Jean-Marie Abgrall]] to "audit" them.{{ r | Palmer_2011 | Vézard_2004 }} Landmark had been listed as a cult by the [[Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France]] 1995 list of cults; displeased by their designation, they contacted Abgrall to have them removed from the list.{{ r | Palmer_2011 | Vézard_2004 }} Abgrall wrote a report on the organization arguing that they were not a cult, arguing that they were a "harmless organization", though they did conclude by recognizing that the group may have had some warning signs.{{ r | Palmer_2011 | Vézard_2004 }} Following his report they were removed from the list, and Abgrall was paid {{Euro|45,699.49}} by Landmark from the period of 2001 to 2002.{{ r | Palmer_2011 | Vézard_2004 }} Abgrall complained in 2004 when interviewed by ''[[Le Parisien]]'' that this had only been revealed to block his involvement in the ongoing [[Order of the Solar Temple]] cult trial, and that he had no [[conflict of interest]] as he "wrote an unfavorable report and paid my taxes."<ref name="Palmer_2011">{{Cite book |last=Palmer |first=Susan J. |author-link=Susan J. Palmer |title=The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la République, and the Government-Sponsored "War on Sects" |title-link=The New Heretics of France |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-973521-1 |pages=161–168, footnote 64 |language=en |chapter=Néo-Phare: The First Application of the About-Picard Law |ref=none}}</ref><ref name="Vézard_2004">{{Cite news |last=Vézard |first=Frédéric |date=2004-05-28 |title=L'embarrassant rapport de l'expert antisectes |trans-title=The embarrassing report of the anti-cult expert |url=https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/l-embarrassant-rapport-de-l-expert-antisectes-28-05-2004-2005017489.php |access-date=2024-08-27 |work=[[Le Parisien]] |language=fr-FR}}</ref> 

In June 2004, Landmark filed a 1 million dollar lawsuit against [[Rick Alan Ross]]'s Cult Education Institute, alleging that postings on the institute's websites which characterized Landmark as a cultish organization that brainwashed their clients damaged Landmark's product.<ref name="Toutant">{{cite news |last1=Toutant |first1=Charles |title=Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech |url=https://www.law.com/almID/900005547114/ |access-date=October 26, 2023 |work=New Jersey Law Journal |publisher=Law.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061006121535/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136838328818 |archive-date=October 6, 2006 |language=en|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> In December 2005, Landmark filed to dismiss its own lawsuit [[Prejudice (legal term)#Civil law|with prejudice]], purportedly on the grounds of a material change in case law after the publication of an opinion in another case, ''Donato v. Moldow'', regarding the [[Communications Decency Act]] of 1996, even though Ross wanted to continue the case in order to further investigate Landmark's educational materials and history of suing critics.<ref name="Toutant" />  Ross stated that he does not see Landmark as a cult because they have no individual leader, but he considers them harmful because subjects are harassed and intimidated, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress.<ref name="Toutant" />