| Comment Number: | 522418-10235 |
| Received: | 7/15/2006 11:47:34 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Julie Rosenblatt |
| State: | WA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
To Whom it may concern: RE: Proposed Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 I am thankful that organizations like the FTC are in existance. Yet I feel at this time that a difference has been overlooked. That difference being between the small, home-business owner and the big world of franchises. I am one of the many millions of hard-working American citizens whois trying to suppliment their income with a small, home based business. I want to be able to stay at home with my small children during their early years and help to form them. Some of the provisions of this proposal seem inherently biased against the home-based business owner, and in fact, are blatantly unfair. · For instance, the proposal that would require a prospective sales associate to wait seven days after the sales presentation to actually join the business is an abusive requirement that would inhibit growth and moreover, a practice that is not found in any other business transaction. In most business transactions, there is a contractual period of time after signing that the prospective sales associate can rescind their decision. This is fair; this is appropriate and in this case the seven days is not unreasonable. Having this up front delay does not in any way help the customer. Most of my new customers/distributors are very anxious to get their product; if they had to add a seven day waiting period onto the delivery of that product, it would be entirely unacceptable to them. · Requiring direct sellers to provide information and identity of ten sales associates in close geographic proximity to the prospective salesperson would not only be a logistical nightmare, and frankly, I think simply could not be done in many instances. I live on a small island and that would add so much time and effort to my simple home-based business it simply dosen't make sense. The potential for identity theft and for even more frightening physical threats because my personal information has been given to strangers is really beyond the pale. · Some parts of this proposed rule are simply onerous; requiring direct sellers to release any information about prior litigation –EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT AT FAULT – creates a negative unwarranted stigma for parties involved. · Today as I understand it, if an opportunity has an initial investment cost below $500 (In the case of my company it is a mere $35) then they are below the expenditure that triggers the FTC franchise rules. With this proposal, our very minimum investment home-based business would be subjected to the same onerous record keeping and disclosure rules that apply to franchises. This type of constraint overburdens the small one-person operation. Small business contributes mightily to the US economy, in fact has been a major growth segment of the US economy. This free enterprise should not be squelched by burdensome bureaucracy. If the goal of this proposal is to attack sleazy “fly by night” marketers of false and deceptive direct selling practices; I believe the FTC today has the enforcement clout to do so, and we applaud them for that! This proposal adds nothing to that quest. In our industry, no one – not the customer, the companies, nor those of us who are currently distributors, benefit by the negative business environment created by a few bad actors. But this proposal, risks the livelihood and future of approximately 14 million, hard-working, honest Americans and that is simply not necessary. This country was built by individuals working, not by huge corporations. We need to value the little guy and allow him/her to continue. Thank you for your time, Julie Rosenblatt