| Comment Number: | 522418-01838 |
| Received: | 6/12/2006 1:03:59 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Gail Hansen |
| State: | AK |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
June 9, 2006 Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W) 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 RE: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 I believe that Rule 511993, in its current form, would make it very difficult for me to proceed with my Sunrider business as an independent distributor because of provisions in the rule that I can only depict as stifling. • Imposing a seven day waiting period before bringing new distributors into the business makes it seem as if something is wrong with Sunrider and its business plan, and this simply is not true; Sunrider provides a wonderful opportunity for people like me to have a part time income. One need only spend $140 to become a distributor. This $140 is not simply a fee to join; it buys products the person can use and share with others. People pay a lot more money for many things in life. When we bought into our cell phone plan the company wasn’t required to wait seven days from the time the plan was explained to us before they could sign us up. Sunrider already has a 60-day return policy. • Requiring me to note when I first speak to someone and then having to notify Sunrider each time I make a contact is truly cumbersome. Honestly, it would seem a real drag to be required to adhere to this rule. Please do not make it so difficult for me or other Sunrider distributors to conduct business. • Requiring us to disclose any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation or unfair or deceptive practices puts me at a disadvantage. It doesn’t matter if the company is found innocent; a wrongful suit must still be disclosed. If Sunrider was found guilty, disclosure would make sense, but this rule would require me to go beyond what I believe is sensible since Sunrider has done nothing wrong. I believe that R511993, though intended to protect consumers, has many unintended consequences and will prove to be very burdensome to someone like me, who is simply trying to introduce people to the wonderful products Sunrider has to offer and provide them with an opportunity to enhance their income. Being an independent Sunrider distributor can be fun. To put it bluntly, imposing these provisions will suck that fun out. Please consider my comments. Sincerely, Gail C.