| Comment Number: | 522418-04425 |
| Received: | 6/26/2006 9:11:01 PM |
| Organization: | Clarkcam.com (Quixtar) |
| Commenter: | Lynn Clark |
| State: | GA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I have been a business owner associated with Quixtar for seven years. I have no regrets regarding my association with this company, which has treated me with honesty and integrity. I was well informed that this was a business that would require considerable work,and that there was nothing get rich quick about it. Every business presentation I have seen since has emphatically given this information. The proposed business opportunity rule is a laudable attempt to control abusers in the direct selling industry, however, in attempting this goal the rule creates problems for the honest among us. Large problems. I will point out just three. 1. The seven day waiting period is a real impediment to growth, and seems entirely unneccesary with companies like ours, that offer a six months money back guarantee and whose initial start-up fee is about $160-200. 2. Providing references of other business owners is a privacy invasion and an invitation to unfair competition. 3. Reporting on litigation "against the seller" needs to be more defined. I am willing to deal with that in relationship to myself and my company, but to list all the litigation that might be out there, frivolous and otherwise, against other owners or against Quixtar itself, would be impractical, unhelpful, and slanderous. All large corporations attract lawsuits, and the listing of them isn't likely to be a good measure of the company's worthiness. As an owner, I am in favor of anything that will interfere with fraudulent imitators, but take care not to make the companies that operate honestly bear a crippling regulatory burden. Thank you for considering carefully any blocks this rule might put in the way of opportunity. Lynn T Clark