supplement.htm

Nationwide Life Insurance Company:

· Nationwide VLI Separate Account - 2

Prospectus supplement dated May 1, 2010

to Prospectus dated May 1, 2002

This supplement updates certain information contained in your prospectus. Please read it and keep it with your prospectus for future reference.

1.	The following sub-accounts are only available in policies for which good order applications were received before May 1, 2010:

·	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - AllianceBernstein NVIT Global Fixed Income Fund: Class VI

2.	Your prospectus offers the following sub-accounts as investment options under your policy. Effective May 1, 2010, these sub-accounts changed names as indicated below:

Old Name	New Name
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - Gartmore NVIT Emerging Markets Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Emerging Markets Fund: Class I
Van Eck Worldwide Insurance Trust - Worldwide Bond Fund: Initial Class	Van Eck Variable Insurance Products Trust - Van Eck VIP Global Bond Fund: Initial Class
Van Eck Worldwide Insurance Trust - Worldwide Hard Assets Fund: Initial Class	Van Eck Variable Insurance Products Trust - Van Eck VIP Global Hard Assets Fund: Initial Class
Wells Fargo Advantage Variable Trust - Wells Fargo Advantage VT Opportunity Fund: Investor Class	Wells Fargo Advantage Funds - Wells Fargo Advantage VT Opportunity Fund

3.	Effective May 1, 2010, the following sub-account liquidated and has merged into a new sub-account as indicated below:

Liquidated Sub-account	Merged Sub-account
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - Gartmore NVIT Global Utilities Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Value Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Global Financial Services Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Value Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Health Sciences Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Growth Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Nationwide Leaders Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Nationwide Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Technology and Communications Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Growth Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT U.S. Growth Leaders Fund: Class I	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Growth Fund: Class I

4.	Effective May 1, 2010, the following underlying mutual fund is available as an investment option under your contract:

·	Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust: NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Value Fund – Class I

5. Effective May 1, 2010, the "Appendix A" is amended to include the following:

Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Multi-Manager Large Cap Value Fund: Class I

Investment Adviser: Nationwide Fund Advisors

Sub-adviser:

Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.; Neuberger Berman Management Inc.; Wells Capital Management, Inc.

Investment Objective: The fund seeks long-term capital growth.

6. The “Legal Proceedings” section of your prospectus is replaced with the following:

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. (NFS, or collectively with its subsidiaries, "the Company") was formed in November 1996. NFS is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC), Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (NLAIC) and other companies that comprise the life insurance and retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of companies (Nationwide). This group includes Nationwide Financial Network (NFN), an affiliated distribution network that markets directly to its customer base. NFS is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Columbus, Ohio.

The Company is a party to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. It is often not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the pending investigations and legal proceedings or to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses with any degree of certainty. Some matters, including certain of those referred to below, are in very preliminary stages, and the Company does not have sufficient information to make an assessment of the plaintiffs’ claims for liability or damages. In some of the cases seeking to be certified as class actions, the court has not yet decided whether a class will be certified or (in the event of certification) the size of the class and class period. In many of the cases, the plaintiffs are seeking undefined amounts of damages or other relief, including punitive damages and equitable remedies, which are difficult to quantify and cannot be defined based on the information currently available. The Company does not believe, based on information currently known by management, that the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position. However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations in a particular period.

In recent years, life insurance companies have been named as defendants in lawsuits, including class action lawsuits relating to life insurance and annuity pricing and sales practices. A number of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial jury awards or settlements against life insurers other than the Company.

The financial services industry, including mutual fund, variable annuity, retirement plan, life insurance and distribution companies, has also been the subject of increasing scrutiny on a broad range of issues by regulators, legislators and the media over the past few years. Numerous regulatory agencies, including the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the New York State Attorney General, have commenced industry-wide investigations on such issues as late trading and market timing in connection with mutual funds and variable insurance contracts, and have commenced enforcement actions against some mutual fund and life insurance companies on those issues. The Company has responded to information requests and/or subpoenas from the SEC in 2003 and the New York State Attorney General in 2005 in connection with investigations regarding market timing in certain mutual funds offered in insurance products sponsored by the Company. The Company is not aware of any further action on these matters.

In addition, state and federal regulators and other governmental bodies have commenced investigations, proceedings or inquiries relating to compensation and bidding arrangements and possible anti-competitive activities between insurance producers and brokers and issuers of insurance products, and unsuitable sales and replacements by producers on behalf of the issuer. Also under investigation are compensation and revenue sharing arrangements between the issuers of variable insurance contracts and mutual funds or their affiliates, fee arrangements in retirement plans, the use of side agreements and finite reinsurance agreements, funding agreements issued to back MTN programs, recordkeeping and retention compliance by broker-dealers, and supervision of former registered representatives. Related investigations, proceedings or inquiries may be commenced in the future. The Company and/or its affiliates have been contacted by, self reported or received subpoenas from state and federal regulatory agencies and other governmental bodies, state securities law regulators and state attorneys general for information relating to certain of these investigations, including those relating to compensation, revenue sharing and bidding arrangements, anti-competitive activities, unsuitable sales or replacement practices, fee arrangements in retirement plans, the use of side agreements and finite reinsurance agreements, and funding agreements backing the MTN program. The Company is cooperating with regulators in connection with these inquiries and will cooperate with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (NMIC) in responding to these inquiries to the extent that any inquiries encompass NMIC’s operations.

A promotional and marketing arrangement associated with the Company’s offering of a retirement plan product and related services in Alabama is under investigation by the Alabama Attorney General, which assumed the investigation

from the Alabama Securities Commission. The Company currently expects that any damages paid to settle this matter will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated financial position. It is not possible to predict what effect, if any, the outcome of this investigation may have on the Company's retirement plan operations with respect to promotional and marketing arrangements in general in the future.

These proceedings are expected to continue in the future and could result in legal precedents and new industry-wide legislation, rules and regulations that could significantly affect the financial services industry, including mutual fund, retirement plan, life insurance and annuity companies. These proceedings also could affect the outcome of one or more of the Company’s litigation matters. There can be no assurance that any litigation or regulatory actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations in the future.

On September 10, 2009, NRS was named in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Alabama entitled Twanna Brown, Individually and on behalf of all other persons in Alabama who are similarly situated, v. Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., Alabama State Employees Association, PEBCO, Inc., Edwin “Mac” McArthur, Steve Walkley, Glenn Parker, Ulysses Lavender, Diana McLain, Randy Hebson, and Robert Wagstaff; and Unknown Defendants A-Z. On January 22, 2010, Brown filed an Amended Complaint alleging in Count One, that all the defendants were involved in a civil conspiracy and seeks to recover actual damages, forfeiture of all other payments and/or salaries to be the fruit of such other payments, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. In Count Two, although NRS is not named, it is alleged that the remaining defendants breached their fiduciary duties and seeks actual damages, forfeiture of all other payments and/or salaries to be the fruit of such other payments, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. In Count Three, although NRS is not named, the plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, seeks injunctive relief permanently removing said defendants from their respective offices in the Alabama State Employees Association (ASEA) and PEBCO and costs and attorneys fees. In Count Four, it alleges that any money Nationwide paid belonged exclusively to ASEA for the use and benefit of its membership at large and not for the personal benefit of the individual defendants. Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages from the individual defendants, forfeiture of all other payments and/or salaries to be the fruit of such other payments, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. On February 5, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to stay the amended complaint. On February 9, 2010, the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate this case with Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. v. Alabama State Personnel Board, PEBCO, Inc. and Alabama State Employees Association. The Company continues to defend this case vigorously.

On November 20, 2007, NRS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled Ruth A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated individuals v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., Alabama State Employees Association, PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z. On December 2, 2008, NRS and NLIC were named in an Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled Ruth A. Gwin, Steven E. Coker, Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated individuals v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc, Alabama State Employees Association, Inc., PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z claiming to represent a class of all participants in the ASEA Plan, excluding members of the Deferred Compensation Committee, members of the Board of Control, ASEA's directors, officers and board members, and PEBCO directors, officers and board members. The class period is from November 20, 2001 to the date of trial. In the amended class action complaint, the plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty, wantonness and breach of contract. The amended class action complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction, an appointment of an independent fiduciary to protect Plan participants, disgorgement of amounts paid, reformation of Plan documents, compensatory damages and punitive damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other equitable and legal relief to which plaintiffs and class members may be entitled. Also, on December 2, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring periodic payments made by NRS and/or NLIC to ASEA or PEBCO to be held in a trust account for the benefit of Plan participants. On December 16, 2008, the Companies filed their Answer. On April 28, 2009, the court entered an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. NRS and NLIC continue to defend this case vigorously.

On July 11, 2007, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma entitled Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. National Education Association, NEA Member Benefits Corporation, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, Security Benefit Group, Inc., Security Distributors, Inc., et. al. The

plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current or former National Education Association (NEA) members who participated in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between January 1, 1991 and the present (and their heirs and/or beneficiaries). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) by failing to prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing to provide complete and accurate information, by engaging in prohibited transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. On May 23, 2008, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On July 10, 2009, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument. NLIC continues to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On November 15, 2006, NFS, NLIC and NRS were named in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entitled Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, In His Official Capacity, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. and Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of all sponsors of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in the United States that had variable annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity contracts with the defendants during the class period. The class period is from January 1, 1996 until the class notice is provided. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments from certain mutual funds. The complaint sought an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants, including interest. On January 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss. On September 17, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On September 15, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On February 3, 2010, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of this case. NFS, NLIC and NRS continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On August 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, et al v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company. In the plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint, filed November 18, 2009, they amended the list of named plaintiffs and claim to represent a class of qualified retirement plan trustees under ERISA that purchased variable annuities from NLIC. The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from certain mutual funds. The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments allegedly received by NFS and NLIC, other unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. On November 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class of “All trustees of all employee pension benefit plans covered by ERISA which had variable annuity contracts with NFS and NLIC or whose participant's had individual variable annuity contracts with NFS and NLIC at any time from January 1, 1996, or the first date NFS and NLIC began receiving payments from mutual funds based on a percentage of assets invested in the funds by NFS and NLIC, whichever came first, to the date of November 6, 2009”. Also on November 6, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to strike NFS and NLIC’s counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees, in the event NFS and NLIC are held to be a fiduciary at trial, and granted H. Grady Chandler’s motion to intervene. On November 23, 2009, NFS and NLIC filed a rule 23(f) petition asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an appeal of the District Court's order granting class certification. On December 2, 2009, NFS and NLIC filed an answer to the 6th Amended Complaint. On January 29, 2010, the Companies filed a motion for class certification against the four named plaintiffs, as trustees of their respective retirement plans and against the trustees of other ERISA retirement plans who become members of the class certified in this lawsuit, for breach of fiduciary duty to the plans because the trustees approved and accepted the advantages of the allegedly unlawful “revenue sharing” payments. NFS and NLIC continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

The general distributor, NISC, is not engaged in any litigation of any material nature.