| Comment Number: | 522418-09551 |
| Received: | 7/14/2006 6:09:52 PM |
| Organization: | XanGo, LLC |
| Commenter: | Susan Stoddard |
| State: | ID |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
To: Federal Trade Commission RE: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 To Whom It May Concern: As I read the purposed ruling put forward by the FTC many issues and two major concerns came to mind. First and foremost, the "rule" would only punish the honest and forthwrite companies because the dishonest companies would still be falsifying their documents and data. Catching fraudulent companies would not happen but honest companies would be bogged down in activites that reduce profitability and waste a companies valuable resources that could be and would be put into the product or services. Another issue that really concerns me is my privacy and the privacy of our customers. To have to hand out peoples private information to new prospects so they can check the "references" puts private information flowing to too many people and defeats the purpose of all the privacy laws on the books now. Would you like your private information given out to hundreds and thousands of people looking into a business opportunity? I would not. The 7 day waiting period is not needed as all legitimate companies have an easy return policy with a generous buyback which presents little or no risk to the prospective purchaser. Concerning legal actions, I feel the proposed rule is unfair in its purpose because it does not provide for a disclosure of the outcome of the litigation or whether the litigation was even relevant to the company. These problematic elements should be addressed, at the very least. Concerning cancellation and refunds the purposed rule would be misleading due to the fact that some distributors often join to achieve a specific, short term objective and that leads to a high cancelation ratio that is not representative of the satisfaction of the average new purchaser. Basically as I mentioned from the start, I see legitimate companies paying the price for fraudulent ones and the problem is still unsolved but legitimate companies reduce their profitability by this proposed rule. Investigating company by company should be done before any ruling applies. I have been in this industry for over 12 years and I have found that most companies are above the board and honest and run ligitimate businesses with wonderful products that help make life better for us all. To put forward this proposed rule would destroy that and we would not have many of the products that we have to choose from today. I see legitimate free enterprize which, is the heart and soul of freedom in America, being destroyed by this proposed ruling. Please don't let that happen. Thanks for reading my remarks, Susan Stoddard