| Comment Number: | 522418-02202 |
| Received: | 6/14/2006 9:15:06 PM |
| Organization: | Mannatech |
| Commenter: | Paula Edgley |
| State: | WA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter because recently heard about and am concerned with the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I believe that in its present form, it could prevent me from continuing as a Mannatech Consultant. I know and understand that part of the FTC’s responsibilities is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” and I thank you for doing that for consumers. However, some of the sections in the proposed rule as I understand them will make it very difficult if not impossible for me to sell Mannatech products. Could you please take the time to explain to me how the following rules are beneficial to someone like me who just wants to share the opportunity of these products and the business with someone and comply with all these rules? For example, the seven-day waiting period required to enroll new Associates. A Mannatech sales kit costs between $99 and $1099. That may sound like a lot of money but we know people who buy TVs, cars, and other items that cost much more than that and they do not have to wait seven-days to make their purchase final. I think this waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the plan and causes undo concern with the potential customer. I also think this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary, because Mannatech already has a 90% buyback policy for all products including sales kits purchased by a salesperson within the last twelve months. 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 to Mannatech headquarters. Next, the proposed rule 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. I think it should be only in the case that the company was found guilty of such charges. Then a disclosure of a lawsuit is in order. Otherwise, Mannatech and I are put at an unfair advantage even though we have 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 sign up as a salesperson “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 a Mannatech Associate for more than two years. Originally, I became an Associate to receive the products at the wholesale cost but now, because I liked them and wanted to earn some additional money, I share the good news of these products with others. 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. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely, Paula Edgley