| Comment Number: | 522418-01124 |
| Received: | 6/6/2006 1:26:44 PM |
| Organization: | Best of Health |
| Commenter: | James Sutton |
| State: | MN |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to you because I am very concerned about your proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. In its present form, it will prevent me from pursuing my chosen occupation as a Nutraceutical Distributor. I understand that part of the FTC’s responsibilities is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts of practices”. However, some of the sections of your proposed rule will make it very difficult if not impossible for me to sell Mannatech’s products and market the business opportunity. One of the reasons for this concern is that the proposed rule will require a seven day waiting period prior to enrolling new associates. Mannatech’s business enrollment All Star Family pack only costs $1,099.00. People can buy TV’s Cars, and hundreds of other items that cost way more than that, and they do not have to wait seven days. This proposed waiting period gives the erroneous impression that there might be something wrong or suspect about the plan. Furthermore, the seven day waiting period is not even necessary because Mannatech already has a 90% buyback policy for all products including sales kits purchased by a salesperson within the past 12 months. Under the waiting period requirement, I would have to keep very detailed records when I first speak to someone about Mannatech (which I do many times each day), and then will have to send in many reports to Mannatech headquarters. In addition, the proposed rule also calls for the release of ANY INFORMATION regarding ANY lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices that have been filed. I matters not that the company would be found innocent of such allegations. In the litigious atmosphere existing today, companies are sued every day for almost anything. The filing of a suit often has nothing to do with a companies’ innocence or guilt. In this situation, it would require me to disclose any lawsuit filed against Mannatech even before it would be found guilty. This places an unfair burden upon me and also Mannatech even though neither of us had done anything wrong! Finally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers living nearest t the prospective purchaser. I am happy to give those references. However, in this atmosphere of identity theft, I believe it would be wrong to give out the personal information of people without their permission to strangers. In addition, giving out this information could damage the business relationship of the references who may be involved with other companies or businesses, including those of competitors. Further, in order to get the list of the 10 prior purchasers, I would have to send the address of the prospective purchaser to Mannatech, and then wait for them to compile the list. Frankly this requirement is simply not workable. Also, consider the effect of the following sentence which is required by the proposed rule. “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers”. Who in their right mind would agree to that? People are justifiably very concerned about their privacy and about identity theft. No one in full control of their senses would agree to have their personal contact information shared with individuals they have never met! I have been an Independent Mannatech Associate for almost 8 years. I am otherwise retired and have found with millions of others that Social Security does not meet the needs. Because of this, and because I love doing what I do, I plan to continue with this business to supplement my income. Your proposed rule will place my future in question. My family is very dependent upon this additional income to meet our basic needs and to supplement our budget. Your work if protection is good, but this proposed rule will be counterproductive. Thank you for your consideration of these matters.