| Comment Number: | 522418-06552 |
| Received: | 7/6/2006 5:50:12 PM |
| Organization: | Quixtar |
| Commenter: | Paul Stephenson |
| State: | AL |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear FTC, I am a Quixtar Independent Business Owner (IBO) and have been so for all the time time Quixtar has been in business and many years before that in the prior company, Amway. I am opposed to the current draft of legislation that you have proposed, as it will put a burden on IBO's to grow their business. While there other points to make, I believe the seven day waiting period to sign up a new IBO is unnecessary. Quixtar provides a money back refund, so just eliminate this requirement for companies that provide a return policy. The disclose past litigation issue very bogus. Reputable companies, like Quixtar, would honor this and provide info to prospects, including all false accusations that have arisen through the years. While unscrupulous companies with no morals would ignore the law and the prospect would gain nothing because he still won't be informed of bad deals. I believe the requirement of 10 IBO references is a violation of privacy of those IBOs. Plus those IBO's would have a potential conflict of interest potentially due to also being capable of signing up someone else's prospects in their organization. It is an unnecessary requirement, because what is the prospect going to gain? The references, just like with job references, are only going to be good info, not bad. In general, I believe any legislation that adds more time and paperwork to the entrepreneur should be abolished and more ideas on how to give business owners incentives to be in business for themselves should be provided. There should be guardrails in place to punish unreputable companies, but don't punish the upstanding, moral companies and people in the process. Sincerely, Paul Stephenson