| Comment Number: | 522418-10117 |
| Received: | 7/15/2006 6:46:25 PM |
| Organization: | Mannakind Inc |
| Commenter: | Roger Barrett |
| State: | Not in the US |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam For the last 4 years I have been contributing to the US economy by selling productsfor a US company - mostly to Canadians. In that time I have never had a single complaint from anyone either side of the border. I am thus confused and disturbed by the proposed legislation: Business Opportunity Rule R511993 because its primary effect would be to make it very much more difficult to continue my business distributing Mannatech products. In particular it is difficult to see how the legislation meets a problem with its 7 day rule. Most of those I enroll do so with an investment of $99 - all of which is refundable if desired - it never once has been. The effect of this part of the legislation is to cast a murky light on direct selling; if a 7 day wait is required in this case, why not when you buy a book from Amazon or other consumer items? The proposed legislation also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. 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 unless Mannatech is found guilty. Otherwise, Mannatech and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Mannatech has done nothing wrong. Finally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser - why is direct selling selected for this onerous condition? I cannot think of any other arena where this is a condition. Providing references is absolutely appropriate but that is hugely different. Would it not make as much sense for a car salesman to have to do the same thing? I think so. I also think the following sentence required by the proposed rule will prevent many people from wanting to sign up as a salesperson “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers.” People are very concerned about their privacy and identity theft. They will be reluctant to share their personal information with individuals they may have never met. Is this really about protecting the buyer, it hardly seems so. Since I have been involved in selling proprietary products for health I have seen over and over how good health and financial independence are gifts beyond measure. If the intention of the FTC is the protection of the consumer I do hope they will bear this in mind. All of N.America is facing the well publicized twin and related problems of over-extended health care and consumer debt - companies like Mannatech deserve the full support of the government and FTC as they sell their products in 10 countries - thereby contributing positively to the balance of trade. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this question. Sincerely, Roger Barrett