| Comment Number: | 522418-01266 |
| Received: | 6/7/2006 1:21:24 PM |
| Organization: | Shaklee Corporation |
| Commenter: | Donna Sayler |
| State: | MI |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Donna & Richard Sayler 6, 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 to express STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. There are MANYconfusing and burdensome sections to the proposed rule. One is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new distributors. Most of the people who sign a Shaklee application are 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. No additional kit, fee or application is required. The Shaklee Member Kit costs only $19.95. This is far less than most consumer purchases, from TVs to all manner of household appliances, none of which require a waiting period. The waiting period is also 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. In this day of identity theft, I am uncomfortable giving out the personal information of other Shaklee distributors, without their knowledge or consent. I understand that those who sign up after the rule takes effect would be told in writing "If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers." This would dissuade new people from signing up as distributors as they are concerned not only about identity theft, but also about their privacy. Providing the 10 references also could damage the businesses of 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 10 reference requirement is an administrative burden. To obtain the list of 10 prior purchasers, I will need to provide Shaklee Corporation with the prospective distributor's address, and wait to receive the list of the 10 nearest distributors who became distributors within the past three years. This will result in a delay far longer than seven calendar days. Many people enter direct selling to earn extra income for a specific goal, such as holiday purchases or a family vacation. The wait which the proposed rule creates may make the goal unattainable. The proposed rule calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits that allege misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices over a 10-year period. It does not matter if the company was found innocent or not liable. Fifty-year old companies such as Shaklee would be at a disadvantage compared to start-up companies, which may not yet have experienced litigation but are far more likely to have legal issues surrounding their opportunities. I have been a Shaklee Distributor for more than 32 years. Originally, I became a Shaklee Distributor because I love the Company's nutritional/personal care/household products and wanted to earn some additional income working from home. Now my family depends on this income for our livelihood. My biggest concern is, "WHAT HAPPENED TO FREE ENTERPRISE IN AMERICA"? Does our American Government really want to control every aspect of our lives? I appreciate the effort to protect consumers, but there HAS to be MUCH LESS burdensome alternatives. Most new people don't have these concerns, and if they do we can aquire the information or proof they request. Why BURDEN everyone with this VERY UNNECESSARY Rule? Thanks for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely, Donna and Richard Sayler