Legal Troubles Surround OneTaste: Evidence Under Scrutiny
Recent developments in the lawsuit against OneTaste, often referred to as the “orgasm cult,” have raised significant questions about the integrity of evidence being presented in court. John Durham, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, confirmed in recent court filings that several journals purported to support the claims in the sex trafficking lawsuit are fabricated and will not be admitted as evidence during the trial.
Background on OneTaste
Founded by Nicole Daedone, OneTaste gained traction in the 2010s with its focus on sexual wellness, particularly emphasizing female sexual pleasure through a practice known as orgasmic meditation (OMs). The organization received widespread attention following Daedone’s viral TED Talk, although it later faced extensive criticism for allegations that it operated more like a cult than a legitimate wellness venture. Investigative reports, such as one by Bloomberg, portrayed OneTaste as exploiting vulnerable individuals, likening it to a prostitution ring that capitalized on trauma in search of healing. These controversies were further explored in the Netflix documentary, Orgasm Inc: The Story of OneTaste.
In light of these allegations, both Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, OneTaste’s former head of sales, have consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Recent Allegations and Evidence Issues
In 2023, Daedone and Cherwitz faced charges of sex trafficking after an anonymous employee, referred to in court documents as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against them. Doe characterized their behaviors as involving “means of force, threats of force, fraud, and a variety of other forms of coercion,” asserting that they were compelled to participate in commercial sex acts as a form of forced labor. The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants engaged in systematic abuse—both emotional and psychological—along with intimidation tactics.
Journals from Former Member Draw Scrutiny
The controversy over the evidence stems from journals kept by Ayries Blanck, a former OneTaste member who claimed her writings documented the experiences within the organization. Initially, Blanck provided investigators with physical journals that she said substantiated her digital accounts. However, in 2025, she revealed that she had transcribed key portions from her handwritten journals after previously typing them for the documentary, prompting concerns about their authenticity.
Citing this discrepancy, the prosecution has decided not to use Blanck’s journals in court. Meanwhile, Daedone and Cherwitz’s legal team has criticized the journals for wasting judicial and defense resources and has called for the dismissal of all charges against their clients.
Implications for Future Proceedings
These developments illustrate the increasingly blurred lines between entertainment and evidence in legal cases, especially those receiving extensive media coverage. As the trial is set to begin on May 5 at the Brooklyn federal court, the outcome of this case will likely hinge on the remaining evidence, the credibility of remaining witnesses, and the ongoing public and media interest surrounding OneTaste.
As the case unfolds, both the legal landscape surrounding the allegations and OneTaste’s reputation remain in a precarious state.
