| Comment Number: | 522418-11780 |
| Received: | 7/17/2006 3:17:42 PM |
| Organization: | Xango |
| Commenter: | sharon Stone |
| State: | CA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
RE: Proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993 I have been in networking for over 20 yrs. My opinions are from the grass-roots level, the concerns of the small, home-based business owner. I am one of the many millions of hard-working American citizens who earn my livelihood from this industry. Some of the provisions of this proposal seem inherently biased against the home-based business owner, and in fact, are blatantly unfair and ridiculous. - The proposal that would require a prospective sales assoc. to wait 7 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 7 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 7 day waiting period onto the delivery of that product, it would be entirely unacceptable to them. - Requiring direct sellers to provide information and identify 10 sales associates in close geographic proximity to the prospective salesperson would not only be a logistical nightmare but could simply not be done in many instances. Even more frightening would be the dramatic invasion of privacy it creates. Being a female myself and knowing most of the self-employed, hard working Americans in this industry are female, many of whom are single parents, I feel it wrong to give out pertinent, private info on them. The potential for identity theft and physical threats because my personal info is given to strangers is beyond reality. This creates an open opportunity for sexual predators. - Some parts of the proposed rule are simply onerous; requiring direct sellers to release any info 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 (my company 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, it has been a major growth segment of the US economy. This free enterprise should not be squashed by burdensome bureaucracy. This would prevent many people from wanting to do the business and inhibit growth in the economy. 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 end. 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 apples. But this proposal risks the livelihood and future of approximately 14 million, hard-working, honest Americans and that is simply not necessary. With the economy slowing down, is this an option that should be risked? Please consider the many millions of Americans that benefit from this industry and make their living from it. Please encourage growth in the economy, and not be the cause of shutting it down. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Stone