| Comment Number: | 522418-00659 |
| Received: | 6/3/2006 2:53:22 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | James Walters |
| State: | MO |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 Dear Sir or Madam: I am strongly opposed 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. 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 the general public and that there are less burdensome alternatives available to the agency to achieve its goals. In fact, existing laws protecting the public need only to be enforced to stop the few unscrupless companies engaged in fraudulant activities. Why penalize the consumer and ethical businesses over a few bad apples. Excessive regulation resulting from runaway socialism in the Soviet Union brought about its collapse. Isn't it ironic that they are embracing capitalism now while we (the USA) are becoming more and more socialistic.