| Comment Number: | 522418-00890 |
| Received: | 6/5/2006 4:57:57 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | John Allie |
| State: | NV |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
June 5, 2006 Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary Room H-135 (Annex W) 600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20580 Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511933 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter because I am concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I believe that in its present form, it could prevent me from continuing as a Mannatech Associate. I understand that part of the FTC’s responsibilities is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” but some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult if not impossible for me to sell Mannatech products. Not all Direct Selling Companies are the same in that with Mannatech the purchaser deals directly with company and the purchase of the products are only from month to month supplies, which mean they can terminate their relation with Mannatech at any time. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new Associates. The costs of Mannatech products range from $28-$1100 depending on the products that they would want. People buy TVs, cars and other items that cost much more than that and they do not have to wait seven-days. This waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the plan. I also think this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary, because Mannatech already has a buyback policy for all products purchased. Under this waiting period requirement, I will need to keep very detailed records when I first speak to someone about Mannatech and will then have to send in many reports Mannatech headquarters. The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. It does not matter if the company was found innocent. Today, anyone or any company can be sued for almost anything. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits unless Mannatech is found guilty. Otherwise, Mannatech and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Mannatech has done nothing wrong. Finally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. I am glad to provide references, but in this day of identity theft, I am very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals (without their approval) to strangers. Also, giving away this information could damage the business relationship of the references that may be involved in other companies or businesses including those of competitors. In order to get the list of the 10 prior purchasers, I will need to send the address of the prospective purchaser to Mannatech headquarters and then wait for the list. I also think the following sentence required by the proposed rule will prevent many people from wanting to join Mannatech as a Associate “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers.” People are very concerned about their privacy and identity theft. They will be reluctant to share their personal information with individuals they may have never met. I have been Mannatech for more than 9 years. Originally, my wife became a Mannatech Associate because of the cancer that she had and the products that helped her in maintaining a positive life while taking the treatments. After seven years of fighting the cancer she lost the battle. I then looked into Mannatech a has Home Base Business because I knew were receiving a check every month and upon further investigation it appeared that not only would I be able to make a nice income but the products would and does help me maintain a healthy life stile. I appreciate the work of the FTC to protect consumers, but I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences and that there are less burdensome alternatives available in achieving its goals. And thank-you for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely,