| Comment Number: | 522418-00464 |
| Received: | 6/2/2006 6:12:23 AM |
| Organization: | Shaklee Distributor |
| Commenter: | Michelle Edwards |
| State: | TX |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
June 2, 2006 Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W) 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I understand that it is the responsibility of the Federal Trade Commission to protect the public from "unfair and deceptive acts or practices," but the rule as proposed would make it very difficult for me to operate my business as a Shaklee Independent Distributor. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new distributors. Most of the people who sign an application do so to purchase Shaklee products at a wholesale price. In other words, they are solely consumers of the products. If they later wish to build a business, all they must do is supply Shaklee Corporation with their Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number. There is no additional kit, fee or application required. The Shaklee Member Kit costs only $19.95. This is far less than many, if not most, consumer purchases, from TVs to all manner of household appliances, none of which require a seven-day waiting period. In addition, the seven-day waiting period is unnecessary in that Shaklee Corporation already has a 90% buyback policy for products, including the Member Kit, purchased by a distributor within the last two years. The proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. Providing the ten references also could damage the businesses of numerous Shaklee distributors. Lower ranking distributors often are involved in more than one direct selling company. Providing a list to a potential recruit, who may already be a distributor for a competing direct selling company, may be an invitation to solicit existing distributors for such other opportunity. The ten reference requirement also is an administrative burden. The proposed rule calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits that allege misrepresentation or unfair or deceptive practices over a ten-year period. It does not matter if the company was found innocent or not liable and there are MANY frivilous lawsuits in todays society! I have been a Shaklee Distributor for more than 5 years. Originally, I became a Shaklee Distributor because my health was deteriorating and the Shaklee products turned my health around. I love the Company's integrity and nutritional/personal care/household products so I then wanted to earn an additional income working from home since I had quite working at a corporation because of my health. So many Americans are suffering health issues because of food choices, toxins and lifestyle and I can now make a difference with Shaklee, food prep education and peaceful daily living. This rule would have a negative impact on me and many others in the home-based business market. While I appreciate the work of the FTC to protect consumers, I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences for direct sellers and that there are less burdensome alternatives available to the agency to achieve its goals. The proposed rule doesn't have logic to promote entrepreneurship! Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely, Michelle Edwards