|Received:||7/17/2006 12:57:50 AM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:I am an Independent Business Owner affiliated with Quixtar. My response to the proposed FTC rule is based upon my personal experience and beliefs that our country was founded upon the principles of freedom from oppression, whether involving religion, business or personal ideals. More rules do not guarantee protection for the individual. Instead, they can hamper the ability of honest citizens to conduct business in our free enterprise system. I have been an IBO since the inception of Quixtar. The Quixtar rules of conduct have sufficiently guided and protected me as a business owner and consumer. In addition, they sufficiently address the issues being proposed by the FTC. Regarding the 7 day waiting period, Quixtar provides a money back guarantee including products and services. I have personally experienced this to be true. I submit a 7-day waiting period would make the registration of prospects more difficult with no apparent benefits. I believe that the proposal to provide "references" would violate the privacy of every person involved. There is a significant risk that prospects could register with a reference instead of myself when I am the person who introduced them to the opportunity. I know of no other business that requires disclosure of references. As an example, Introductory business meetings are already in place to provide information to prospects from other IBOs with no vested interest. Even if it were possible to acquire a list of litigation filed against Quixtar, its key personnel and representatives, this rule for a "litigation list" is unduly restrictive and could actually promote misinformation by including cases filed "without merit". I believe privacy again may be an issue. While I am opposed to the proposal in its entirety, it does not adequately define what a "seller" is. A list in and of itself offers no protection to the prospect. Concerning "specific earnings disclosures", adequate information is provided in the SA-4400 form provided to the prospect at the time the business opportunity is presented. Actual earnings are dependent upon sales volume generated by a particular IBO's business. Regarding "financial substantiation", the disclosure of income is irrevelant because the income developed by an IBO is not dependent upon the income developed by the sponsoring IBO. A general statement concerning the impact of the business on a person's life, which can include rewards other than money, is included in the opportunity presentation. Specific disclosure of income, other than the averages already stated in the literature, is a violation of privacy. Income potential varies according to each business owner's prerogative and effort. Therefore, it would be absolutely inappropriate to be required to produce personal financial records to a prospect. The FTC's proposed rules could significantly hinder the ability of legitimate business owners to conduct business and support the economy of our great country. I believe consumer protection laws already in place adequately guard the consumer without jeopardizing the business owner's abilities to conduct business. We must preserve the freedom of every citizen in this country that our forefather's fought and died for. Direct sales and free enterprise are the flagship of those freedoms.