| Comment Number: | 522418-04449 |
| Received: | 6/26/2006 10:42:16 PM |
| Organization: | Maddog Global |
| Commenter: | Matthew Porter |
| State: | TX |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I applaud the FTC for your concern for the people of the United States, and your vigilance to protect people of the United States from fraud, and to even the playing field for legitimate business. I urge you to continue to protect us from those who would cause harm rather than to perpetuate free enterprise in the US. I have some minor concerns with this new draft of legislation. I have been an IBO with Quixtar for a little over a year. As a matter of practice I personally, because it is what I have been taught, make very sure that people know this is NOT “get rich quick” as a matter of practice I tell people this and allow the opportunity to leave if this is what they are looking for. My sponsor in business was very thorough to introduce me to IBOs in the area and allow me to talk to them on the phone, without giving me their personal information. Typically people in my business register for about $70 plus any product they would like to purchase, after they have been given free samples of some of my favorite products. Of this amount 100% is refundable for 6 months, instilling a safeguard for them to “change their mind” after they have experienced the business, which is second to none in allowing them to “test drive” the business. Because the manner in which we conduct our business there are a few of the provisions of this rule that have potential to counter the FTC mission. Mandating a waiting period, from my vantage point, indicates that even if given all of the information a person is not capable of making a good decision unless it is over time. A good portion of people would not be affected by this decision, in my experience, but this seems to exert a bit of "parental" control, by not allowing grown adults to make an informed decision. Additionally, I am sure that in your own experience as well as in research it is extensively been proven that the longer the period of time that lapses from when the information in given, the less you remember and the less information you use to make a decision. I would rather have a person tell me No in a short time period than yes 7 days later because they forgot some concerns. I have found that the longer people wait the more likely they are to change their mind at a later time. I would eliminate the waiting period in an instance where a money back guarantee is issued. I believe the money back is a much better safeguard than the waiting period. To provide references, as I see it, infringes on the privacy of business owners, and opens up a venue for dishonest persons to "steal a prospect". Requiring references asserts an undue burden, and has great potential to cause harm. I would also propose to eliminate the requirement for disclosure of past litigation, increasing the publicity of litigation always increases the potential for false litigation, and in our society though litigation is “without merit” it could cast an inaccurate view of a company. Also because litigation is a matter of public record, an interested person could look up this information independently as they desired not elevating awareness and notoriety of all litigation, or causing an inaccurate view of an exceptional company, by increasing this publicity. This would seem to hurt honest business operations, and a dishonest operation could just fail to disclose this info. Business should possess substantiation for any claim but should not be required to disclose it except when required by the FTC and similar state agencies in an agency investigation. Thank you for your attention to my experience and comments.