| Comment Number: | 522418-02199 |
| Received: | 6/14/2006 9:07:36 PM |
| Organization: | EZ Dayz, Inc. |
| Commenter: | Connie Haberman |
| State: | WA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I am extremely concerned and disturbed about the proposed ruling R511993 on Business Opportunity. I believe that in it's present form it would prevent me from continuing my current Mannatech distributor business of 12 years, which in effect would take away more than half of our monthly income. I understand the need to protect people from the deceptive practices of others, but the things you are proposing are utterly ridiculous. To wait 7 days to enroll a new Distributor at just $99 is silly. I can buy a hand gun in five days or a car, boat, tv, etc. the same day and they would all cost much more than $99. It puts doubt in peoples minds and our company has a 90% buy back program for all products and sales kits purchased within the last 12 months, how many major corporations can say that? Do you have any idea of what identity protection is? Why would I want to give out the information of 10 people that have purchased products to prospective purchasers, that is just wrong. Where would the trust be between me and my customers by doing that. If you make one business provide the lawsuits that they have been involved in concerning misrepensentation, or unfair or deceptive practices, whether won or lost, then every business that operates in the US should have to provide that same information to any propective customer before they buy their products, it's only fair. I became a Mannatech distributor 12 years ago because of health problems and because their products were of the highest quality and efficacy on the market, which has turned into a very equitable business for me and my husband and we definely depend largely on the income. It would be devastating to many American households that depend on this form of extra, and in some cases, main source of income. I understand that the work of the FTC is to protect the public, but I beleive that this proposed ruling has so many adverse consequences and that there has to be a better way of protecting the consumer without taking the food out many families mouths. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments on this matter.