| Comment Number: | 522418-11526 |
| Received: | 7/17/2006 12:49:20 PM |
| Organization: | Stampin' Up Demonstrator |
| Commenter: | Catherine Harwood |
| State: | FL |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam: I wanted to express my concern about proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. As a Stampin’ Up Demonstrator for almost nine years, I’ve sold rubber stamps/craft products through a home business model that is elegant in its simplicity. I’m sure the rule has a noble intent, but some of the sections will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for me to continue selling Stampin’ Up! products. I'm troubled by the proposed 7-day waiting period to sign up new demonstrators. Stampin’ Up! already has a policy under which they will repurchase all products, including sales kits, at 90 percent of their cost, for up to a year. I simply don’t see the need for the very burdensome documentation requirements that would come along with this provision. The rule would also ask me to supply an interested demonstrator with the names of ten recent purchasers. I am extremely uncomfortable about the prospect of sharing anyone’s personal information with someone else. Another requirement to disclose any litigation, no matter the outcome, is blatantly unfair, since it lumps an innocent court finding in with a more negative outcome. Again, supplying all this information to potential new demonstrators would be a logistical nightmare. I love my Stampin’ Up business. We are a company that has always emphasized honesty, integrity and doing what’s right. I choose to stay affiliated with Stampin’ Up because of their integrity. I think this proposed rule represents a case of going too far. I can understand the government’s interest in protecting consumers, but feel the unintended consequences for thousands of legitimate home-based businesses simply make this rule bad law. Thank you for considering my comments and I am hopeful that this rule will not be enacted in its current form. Sincerely, Catherine Harwood