| Comment Number: | 522418-07929 |
| Received: | 7/12/2006 12:47:50 AM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Jerome Gillespie |
| State: | KS |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
The problem with attempting to regulate those who would intentionally prey on the naive and ignorant is that it is already against the law to do so and they have already broken laws against deception, fraud, scams and diverse other laws. This rule accomplishes nothing more than writing another law that makes it unlwaful to break the previously written laws. Except that it does indeed hamper those legal industries, such as Quixtar, that already go the extra mile to fully inform new prospects by providing income disclosures, business support materials arbitration agreements, and 100% money back guarantees on all purchases. The proposed waiting period is 4 days more than any other buyers remorse agreement. Where is the rationale for that? No business I have ever purchased a product or service from has vountarily disclosed the last ten years of law suits filed against them and/or their products. Will you also require them to begin to do so? If not, why not? How does a independent business owner like myself even begin to learn of all the lawsuits filed in the past ten years? If that information is available to me, is it not also available under the FOI Act to anyone else? If I am opening a business in a new area, why would I disclose to my prosective partner the names of my competitors who, since I don't know them, might well unfairly represent themselves to lure my partner away? And how can you presume that those who operate the fraudulent scams would provide a list of honest references? It seems to me this will work exactly opposite of your intentions. A requirement to disclose something as private as my personal income to a person I am only inviting to consider participation in my business seems rather extreme, don't you? What will I be expected to present as proof of my claim? Wouldn't such a disclosure make me a target to an unscrupulous person? How is justice served by exposing me and my family to harm? Every reasonable person knows that there are no guarantees on income in any endeavor and if they believe someone's guarantee, they are too foolish to be a partner of mine. And once more, a false statement of income will come easily to a person bent on deception. I can appreciate that innocent folks should be protected from dishonest people. But I also appreciate that serious folks do due diligence in proportion to the assets they put at risk. What other company is required to do such extensive due diligence for the prospective customer/client/partner? This rule would unfairly handicap those independent business owners like myself who strive to operate well within the existing laws, not because it is lawful but because it is the right thing to do. This rule will do nothing to prevent an already unlawful person from continuing to prey on innocent, gullible, and naive victims. If fact, when the unlwaful person provides even more fraudulent information ostensibly in compliance with this new rule, the seeming compliance will only further confuse and deceive the very person the rule is trying to protect. I strenuously oppose this rule as written and hope your intentions can be effected in ways less onerous to honest business men and women like my wife and I. Please do not enact this rule without eliminating the personal income disclosures, the 10 person reference requirement, the any and all lawsuits disclosures, and the seven day waiting period. Thank you consideration of my comments.