| Comment Number: | 522418-01385 |
| Received: | 6/8/2006 12:16:30 AM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Karen Lynn |
| State: | Not in the US |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I understand that it is the responsibility of the Federal Trade Commission to protect the public from 'unfair and deceptive acts or practices', but the rule as proposed would make it very difficult for average people to recruit one another in small product sharing companies, like I have been involved in, on different occasions. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new distributors. Would stores selling bulk consumer purchases from shoes to TVs to all other manner of items require a seven-day waiting period, before a person could purchase from them? Why then would a distributor wishing to purchase items to possibly share with others, have to wait 7 days before he/she is able to purchase them? Better tell people that want to share of a great restaurant or movie that those they share with have to wait 7 days before they go and try it. This ruling only builds walls and roadblocks between the quick commerce of people sharing with other people. There is no good reason that good things shared from person to person within a company need to wait for? Maybe only for very high paying distributorship, that won’t offer 90%, 60 day money back policies. Then your 7 day wait ruling might help protect those that get caught up in a costly fraud. I have been involved with a few North American MLM companies that gave the choice to sign up with $800 to $1000 for products. Even though I didn't want to sell afterwards, I still received great products to try, use and share as gifts. Most companies I became involved with always gave some kind of money back policy. Those that did not, were the companies that had bad products. So the ruling shouldn’t be a 7 day policy, it should be a ruling that all companies that have products to purchase, have to give either the consumer and distributor at least a 90%, 60 day money back policy. This is how you will protect the public from unfair and deceptive acts or practices. I just purchased a DELL laptop from the shopping channel, it came from Texas, cost $1800 on my master card. When I received it I was in the middle of packing for a driving trip to Key West Florida from Ontario. I took the laptop with me. Each time I used it I was in a hotel late at night to email the kids where we were. When we finally got back, 26 days later, I started to use it in our two window computer room, I realized that the screen was too shinny for me on sunny days, and called to get a return authorization. I was told NO because it was 10 days after the 30 day money back policy. It didn't matter why, or that I was getting headaches now that I was home and using it all day. I was refused a return! So I'm stuck paying for a laptop that gives me headaches. If the Federal Trade Commission wants to protect prospective purchasers with material information needed to combat fraud from business opportunity sellers, then a ruling is only fair if it is the same rule is across the board. Forget the 7 day wait period to purchase, protect the consumer with a fare trade policy after the purchase. Don’t slap the little sales distributor that is trying to make ends meet, but enforce all companies with the same policy, so they become accountable on the product they sell. This 7 day wait ruling will only put up roadblocks for the little distributor wanting to share a product with another person. Roadblocks lead to less products being sold, less cash going around, less produce being moved, When wheels slow down, this only effects the economy that you and I all depend on. DON'T DO IT!!!!!!! DON'T MAKE THIS RULE INTO EFFECT!!! You aren't making a Business Opportunity Ruling you are making a Business Opportunity Mistake. Plus I understand more about this ruling is Wrong, as I am running out of characters, please look for more comments from me on that.