| Comment Number: | 522418-06961 |
| Received: | 7/8/2006 9:34:12 AM |
| Organization: | Market America |
| Commenter: | Barre and Renee Probst |
| State: | IL |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam: We are writing this letter because we are concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. We believe that in its present form, it could prevent us from continuing as Market America Independent Distributors. We applaud the FTC in taking responsibilities to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” but some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult if not impossible for us to sell Market America products and services. We have been Independent Distributors for Market America, Inc. for only a short time. Our plans in becoming distributors were to help provide supplemental income for us in our retirement. By becoming owners, we are taking a lot of the responsibility of providing for our self in our retirement. Not having to rely solely on the government to help us thru this part of our life. I think this is also what the government wants people to do, to take more control of their own destiny and support themselves. I don’t want to end up working at a fast food joint or be a greeter at some large discount chain. I am particularly concerned about the following issues in the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993: Seven Day Waiting Period One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven day waiting period to enroll new distributors. Market America’s subscription (sales) kit costs $99.95. I spend more than that on one visit to the grocery store. This waiting period also makes people feel that there might be something wrong with the plan. We also think the seven-day waiting period is unnecessary. The paperwork requirement under this waiting period requirement would be very time consuming, taking this from a part time business to a full time one. I don’t think that real estate agents in my area have to do as much paperwork and they sell things in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Discloser of Purchasers The proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. This requirement may be in violation of my state’s laws regulating referrals, testimonials and advertising. Many people are very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals to strangers - especially without their approval and the possibility of identity theft. Also, 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. Litigation Information The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits. It does not matter if the company was found innocent. Today, anyone or any company can be sued for almost anything. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits. Market America and I are put at an unfair disadvantage - even though Market America has done nothing wrong. In conclusion We appreciate the work of the FTC to protect consumers, but we believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences for small business owners, especially part time small business owners like us. We believe that there are less burdensome alternatives available in achieving its goals. Thank you for your time in considering our comments. Renee and Barre Probst