Comment Number: 522418-11282
Received: 7/17/2006 9:44:46 AM
Organization: Quixtar
Commenter: Evelyn Liles
State: GA
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

I am new to Quixtar so I cannot comment on all the proposed items but I would like to address a few. I am not opposed to regulation, however, some of the requirements proposed could have a negative effect on my income potential. I am not your typical person when it comes to parting with money so I thoroughly checked out this business and the claims made before I decided to sign up. I also signed up because, after sampling the products, I liked them and wanted to use them. It made sense to be in business for myself if I was going to use the products and other people see, ask questions, and become interested as well. I believe the most critical proposal item would be the use of ten references. I do not have a problem with having references but it becomes a problem if my prospect calls the references and decides they want to sign up but asks one of my references to sign them up while on the phone or for whatever reason. This means I am losing money and someone else is profitting without putting out any effort. If I could sign up all potential prospects in a database so that nobody else would be able to sponsor that prospect, then I believe it could work. The seven day waiting period concerns me only in the fact that if I signed up and then in turn my family and/or friends decided to sign up, they would have to wait an additional seven days. Also, Quixtar already offers your money back. I see no reason for a waiting period when a money back guarantee is offered. Any legitimate business would already have the guarantee in place. A waiting period makes sense if a business does not offer a guarantee. Maybe it could be stipulated that a business must have one or the other but not required to have both. I did several searches online to see what comments had been made about the business before I signed up. I also checked BBB Online for comments and checked under every possible company name (including parent company, former company and owner names). I did not find any legal claims that where substantiated. My only comment on this would be to require only convictions or substantiated claims against a company be required to be disclosed. This would keep false claims/accusations from influencing someone. I am in favor of helping to protect against fraudulent scams, however, my mother raised me to have common sense and to check things out before getting involved in anything. I did my homework and so should everyone else. I should not be penalized because some people jump at any scheme. If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. Also, I never heard of anybody paying you to do nothing. Quixtar and businesses like it that offer guarantees, are members of the Better Business Bureau, answer any questions you have and encourage you to do your own checking should not be lumped into the same category as the so-called businesses that do none of the above and sound like scams when you read examples in the proposal. Find a way to make two groups out of these or make specifications for the ones that do nothing with exemptions for the businesses that already do the above. Thank you for your time.