| Comment Number: | 522418-02104 |
| Received: | 6/14/2006 11:01:13 AM |
| Organization: | Pure Romance |
| Commenter: | Cheri Patterson |
| State: | NE |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Cheri Patterson Pure Romance by Cheri 14 June 2006 Dear Sir or Madam: 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 a Pure Romance Consultant. I understand that part of the FTC’s responsibilities is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” yet some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for me to sell Pure Romance products. I have been a Pure Romance Consultant for only a few months, but have been in the home-based direct sales business for over 5 years. Originally, I became a consultant in my company because I felt the products were exceptional and I wanted to earn some additional income. Now, I am a divorced woman, and I am supported through my direct selling business. The future of my livelyhood is dependent on the stability of the direct selling industry. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new consultants]. Our sales kit only costs $250. People buy TVs, cars, and other items that cost much more and they do not have to wait seven days. This waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the company or the compensation plan. Under this waiting period requirement, I will need to keep very detailed records when I first speak to someone about Pure Romance and will then need to send in many reports to my company headquarters. The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. It does not matter if the company was found innocent. Today, anyone or any company can be sued for almost anything. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits unless Pure Romance is found guilty. Otherwise, Pure Romance and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Pure Romance has done nothing wrong. Finally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. I am glad to provide references, but in this day of identity theft, I am very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals (without their approval) to strangers. Also, 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 Pure Romance headquarters and then wait for the list. 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. I have been the victim of identity theft and I would NEVER allow any personal information – including my address or phone number to be given to anyone in this manner. It is irresponsible and very dangerous to say the least. I would NEVER ask that any of my customers release this kind of information in such a broad and reckless manner. I appreciate the work that the FTC does to protect consumers, yet I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences and there are less burdensome alternatives available to achieving your goals. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Respectfully, Cheri Patterson