|Received:||6/8/2006 4:49:50 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:I am writing this letter because I am concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I believe that in its present form, it could prevent me from continuing as an Independent Sunrider Distributor. I have been an Independent Sunrider Distributor for sixteen years. Originally, I became a Distributor of Sunrider’s products because I like the products and wanted to earn some additional money. Now my family depends on this extra income as our main source of income. I understand that part of the FTC’s responsibilities is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” but some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult if not impossible for me to sell Sunrider® products. I think it is unfair practice to unnecessarily require disparaging regulations such as this to discourage opportunity for small businesses who represent outstanding, award winning products with integrity, for a fair price. We are proud of our standing in the marketplace. We do our business with integrity so that all have equal opportunity to prosper. Why hamper such an important niche in an economic climate that can really use the sort of initiatives that direct selling injects into the market place? I appreciate the work of the FTC to protect consumers, but I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences and that there are less burdensome alternatives available in achieving its goals. The proposed rule calls for the release of information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. It does not matter if the company was found innocent. This could work positively for all parties concerned if it is required in the release of information to make the outcome of said lawsuits as important as the lawsuit itself. But even that is not always possible as lawsuits are common in business today and the guilty party is not always clear. I have worked with Sunrider for sixteen years and have watched them be unfairly and unjustly handled in courts of law. It can be questionable whether laws were intentionally broken or not especially given the climate of the (IRS in this case) and the public press. Finally, the proposed rule requiring the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser is putting unnecessary burden on the company and distributors.. I am glad to provide references, but in this day of identity theft, I am very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals to strangers. I would not want to ask such a favor from my own personal relationships, why would I want to muddle a new business relationship with that type of disclosure? I also think the following sentence required by the proposed rule will prevent many people from wanting to sign up as a salesperson: “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers.” People are very concerned about their privacy and identity theft. They will be reluctant to share their personal information with individuals they may have never met. Giving away this information could damage the business relationship of the references who may be involved in other companies or businesses including those of competitors. In order to get the list of the 10 prior purchasers, I will need to send the address of the prospective purchaser to Sunrider headquarters and then wait for the list. Thanks for your attention in this matter.