|Received:||6/29/2006 4:03:27 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:Greetings: I am writing to ask that the Commission reconsider its proposed Business Opportunity Rule #R511993. I have been a representative for two different network marketing companies over the past four years. Although I was previously skeptical about network marketing I have come to appreciate this business model as a shining example of free market capitalism. Because of network marketing, I have been able to supplement the income from my full-time job and provide my family greater financial security. I have been able to help customers find and take advantage of high quality products they cannot find in retail establishments. And I have been able to help other people start a home business that has in turn allowed them to experience similar benefits. Network marketing has been a win-win-win situation for me, my customers, and fellow Associates. The proposed regulation would place an unfair burden on American citizens like me who supplement their income with a direct sales network marketing opportunity. This proposed rule singles out one distribution model and imposes unwieldy requirements that will severely impair my ability to run a successful business. For example, the 7-day waiting period will cause potential new Associates to think that something is wrong with USANA Health Sciences (my current company). It's as if the FTC is painting a big red "S" for "Scam" on the forehead of every network marketing distributor. What other industry suffers under such a burden? This 7-day waiting period is particularly onerous given that persons dissatisfied with being a USANA Associate have the option of receiving a 100% refund in the first 30 days and a 90% refund up to one year after they applied. If there must be a new regulation, requiring a generous refund policy such as USANA’s would provide even better protection against fraud without ostracizing network marketing distributors. The requirement to disclose lawsuits against one’s company, whether or not the company had been found guilty of wrong doing, is particularly difficult to understand. What other business must disclose lawsuits filed against them, even if they have been exonerated? Finally, to require distributors to provide the names of ten other distributors in one’s area is plagued with multiple problems: 1) It requires violating the privacy of ten American citizens in an era of rampant identity theft; 2) It provides a golden opportunity for unscrupulous individuals looking for business leads to obtain such leads for free under the pretense that they want to become a distributor; 3) It provides an additional burden on my business because I would have to disclose to potential new distributors that their name and contact information would be released to any prospective distributor in the future who lives in their area. I personally would never have started my USANA business if I knew my confidentiality would be violated by order of the United States government. Because of these problems with the proposed Rule, I respectfully request that the Rule be withdrawn. If the Rule is adopted by the Commission with some or all of these provisions, my business will undoubtedly suffer tremendously. I respect and appreciate the Commission’s effort to protect citizens from fraud. However, the proposed Rule is not the way to do it.