|Received:||6/19/2006 11:13:25 AM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:Business Opportunity Rule R511993 If your recommendation to supply recent cancellations and refunds does not apply to car dealerships, real estate brokers, or HBO subscriptions, why should it apply to my direct marketing company? Wouldn't this more correctly reflect my personal management failures rather than reflect upon the company I represent anyway? Who will enforce the accuracy of such a listing? Are we left with burdening the law abiding citizen all the while allowing the outlaw to deceive clients undetected? I find this requirement unnecessarily burdensome and worthless since I'd have to comply with such a demand while the unscrupulous among us would not. Now, if this roster is intended to convenience the buyer with recent feedback on the seller, once again, this avenue should be made readily available to any new client or prospect voluntarily. If someone doesn't provide references to me, I don't buy, or at least I always have the option not to buy. I don't need a law, an unenforceable law, for buyer assurances. My disclosure of (list of nearest references) references is available to anyone who asks now. Available voluntarily. Why must it be law? Such a disclosure would indeed be valuable for a Subway Sandwich franchise, a car dealership, or a movie theatre which has direct population density impact. Such geographical disclosure is a very essential determining factor due to the importance of location for many enterprises. However, not for my company XanGo, since we are not territorially oriented. The proximity to/from other distributors has no impact or relevancy to my operation since I have no geographical limitations. If someone asks for this information, I can provide it, but isn't that a privacy issue in the case of unwanted disclosure? (Young single women, for instance.) Besides, any other competition would savor such data for immediate prospecting. Disclosing all legal actions is another burden which strikes me as onerous. How many ham sandwich "indictments" or frivilous lawsuits must be disclosed? This will be a weapon for busy legal departments to create clouds of suspicion to descend upon targeted and successful competition. Besides, a Google search discloses all current litigation or suspected scams should such a curious buyer inquire. Please do not feed the trial lawyers with this requirement. Again, who will enforce compliance? How? Demand a current "rap sheet" with quarterly updates? I have no faith that the unscrupulous would be deterred and henceforth no safety afforded to the buyer with such a measure. Lastly, this seven day waiting period is more cumbersome that the three day right of recision for six figure bank deposits and check clearances. If a company has a 30 day, money back guarantee, why would seven days for a "cool down period" be necessary? This proposal would be more applicable to organizations charging large membership fees, fees in the thousands of dollars just to join which are subject to the three day right of recision rule anyway. Why four more days? Excluding weekends? We charge a $35 one time signup fee. Why would that require a seven day waiting period? One more proposal suggests subjecting the buyer to a $500 charge for joining a direct marketing company. I'm unclear as to whether this vaults all propositions into the "franchise" category and subjects all businesses to operate accordingly, or if this is blatant government meddling in the commercial arena. I joined XanGo because it was only $35. $500 may have been a deterrent for me. Why should this "tax" be imposed on the buyer in a completely optional transaction? This rule would necessitate tracking, crediting escrow accounts, and refunding sometime after enrollment. If you are looking to boldly tax the buyer, then say so. This is not only a burden on private business, but a blatant attempt to raise tax revenues disguised as compassionate legislation for public safety.