|Received:||7/4/2006 9:00:13 PM|
|Commenter:||Alvin Don Lankford|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:Gentlemen: In response to the proposed changes to Business Opportunity Rule R511993, I would like to make the following comments. To place home based businesses such as mine in the same category as franchises like McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Burger King, etc is placing undue burden on the small companies. I do not have the resources to comply with the proposed reporting requirements and therefore will have to get out of the business that I am promoting. The requirement of knowing ten people, around the prospect, who has purchased would require my parent company to provide me this information in the HOPE that the prospect will purchase. But this will also cause confidentiality problems and increase the possibility of identity theft if the prospect we are speaking with is trying to obtain this type of information. In light of the problem we are having now with identity theft, this proposed plan is contrary of the HEPA rules in place now. As to the seven day waiting period, this rule will directly effect the sales of honest home based businesses. We offer our prospects a thirty day money back guarantee and have honored this without fail. But if we tell someone that we cannot sell to them for seven days, they, and you if you were looking at a home based business, would wonder if the offer was legitimate if they had to wait seven days. This rule makes home based businesses appear to be shams, and will hurt the honest home based businesses. The scam artists and charlatans will still operate, without waiting the seven days and ruin the reputation of all home based businesses. With respect to the LEGAL ACTION portion of the rule. This rule will restrict the home business operator as they generally do not know the number of Frivolous and Speculative lawsuits that are placed against the home office because they are handled by home office staff, and we are unaware of these lawsuits. Plus, the rule does not require us to disclose relevant lawsuits, but all lawsuits, no matter how they were settled. This is unfair to a legitimate company. I realize that your department is trying to rid businesses of scam artists and charlatans, and I applaud you for the effort. However, this rule will not fulfill your hopes, as the scam artists will not follow the rules. The honest home based business operator will be the one affected by this rule and it will have an adverse effect on the honest operator. Please reconsider your rules and make necessary changes that will BENEFIT the honest operator, not hinder them. Thank you for giving me a chance to comment on the proposed rules.