| Comment Number: | 522418-02397 |
| Received: | 6/15/2006 5:14:14 PM |
| Organization: | Sunrider International Independent Distributor |
| Commenter: | Johanna O'Neil |
| State: | TX |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Johanna S. O’Neil June 15, 2006 Federal Trade Commission Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W) Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 RE: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 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 would greatly hinder my earning power to provide for my family of five. Our American heritage instills the belief “to not give up”, so while it would not stop me from conducting business it definitely would create a hardship. 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 much more difficult for me to conduct my business as an Independent Sunrider® Distributor. My main concern is the proposed seven-day waiting period to enroll new Distributors. This waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with ‘the plan’ when that is not the case. I personally did not want to wait seven days when I was introduced to Sunrider. I firmly believe my health is of great importance and was anxious to purchase product from my own company instead of the grocery store. At the time of introduction to Sunrider, I also felt that Item 10 in the Distributor Agreement allowed adequate time for cancellation should I so choose. Item 10 states, “You may cancel this Agreement within 15 days of execution…” Sunrider already has a generous 60-day return policy for existing Distributors that is applicable to all products, including the Sunrider® Starter Pack. Sunrider also has a 90% buyback policy for former Distributors applicable to all products purchased within the last twelve months. These policies are even better options than the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. Another problem with the seven-day waiting period is the administrative burden it would place on Distributors. As with me, many Distributors find it necessary to have other means of income, which makes time very precious. Rule R511993 could create unnecessary reports. I like to think that I keep accurate records of all my contacts, meetings, samples, etc. for tax purposes but to impose further reporting would place time burdens on my family and me. The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. With the electronic age of the Internet, this information is already available. 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. In addition, giving away this information could damage the business relationship of the references who may be involved in other companies or businesses including those of competitors. I also feel the following sentence required by the proposed rule is not acceptable: “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers.” I personally do not want to share my information with individuals I have not met. I appreciate the work of the FTC to protect consumers, but I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences. There are less burdensome alternatives available in achieving the goal of protecting the American public. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely, Johanna S. O’Neil