| Comment Number: | 522418-02589 |
| Received: | 6/16/2006 10:51:11 AM |
| Organization: | Sunrider Independent Distributor |
| Commenter: | Sue Yee |
| State: | CA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| Attachment: | 522418-02589.pdf Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter because I am concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity of Rule R511993. This rule could prevent me from continuing as an Independent Sunrider Distributor. 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. One of the most confusing sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new Distributors. The cost of the Sunrider’s Starter Pack is $140. It is not a mandatory purchase in order to become an Independent Sunrider Distributor. People make computer, cars, audio purchases, and other products that cost much more than that and they do not have to wait seven days. The 7 day waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the plan. I also think this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary because Sunrider already has a generous 60-day return policy for existing Distributors that is applicable to all products, including the Sunrider® Starter Pack. Additionally, products purchase from Sunrider has a 90% buyback policy for former Distributors applicable to all products purchased within the last twelve months. Another problem with the seven-day waiting period is the administrative burden of keeping very detailed records when I first speak to someone about Sunrider, and then having to send numerous reports to Sunrider 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. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits unless Sunrider is found guilty. Otherwise, Sunrider and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Sunrider 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 happy to provide references; however due to recent identity theft, I am very uncomfortable releasing and providing the personal information of individuals without their approval. In addition, 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. 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 an Independent Sunrider Distributor since 1991. Originally, I became a Distributor of Sunrider’s products because I enjoy the product and wanted to share with my friends and family. I saw the business opportunity and now my family depends on this extra income to supplement our budget. 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. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely, Sue Yee