Comment Number: 522418-06642
Received: 7/6/2006 11:06:28 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Dawn Gay
State: FL
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

Dawn Gay Independent USANA Associate  July 7, 2006 Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W) Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 RE: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 Dear Sir or Madam: After being a stay-at-home mom for four years, I decided to get involved with the opportunity to earn some additional money. I became an Independent USANA Associate and my family has depended on this extra income to supplement our income for a few years now. Because of this, I am writing to voice my concern regarding the FTC’s proposed Business Opportunity Rule (R511993) as presently drafted. I believe it could encumber or even ruin my business that I have worked hard to build. One of the sections of the proposed rule I disagree with is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new independent USANA Associates as USANA’s sales kit is a small price of only $19.95 or $49.95, depending on it being paper or the electronic version. I believe this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary, because USANA already has a 100% buyback policy for all products including the sales kit purchased by a salesperson within the initial 30 days and a 90% buyback for products purchased within the last twelve months. Under this waiting period requirement, I would need to keep very detailed records of when I first speak to someone about USANA and on top of that will then have to send in reports to USANA headquarters. This waiting period also gives the impression that there might be something wrong with USANA’s business plan. The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices even if the company was found innocent. I believe this to be unfair for innocent companies mostly due to the fact that anyone or any company can be sued for almost any reason. Would it not make more sense to require the disclosure of these lawsuits by the guilty alone to avoid leading prospective business associates to believe the company they are considering is guilty when they are not? Lastly, the proposed rule requires the company to disclose to each prospective independent USANA Associate the names and contact information of a minimum of 10 previously enrolled independent USANA Associates who live nearest to the prospective Associate. Most independent Associates work from home and disclosing our personal information opens us up to identity theft or unwanted solicitation from other network marketers. I would be reluctant giving out the personal information of individuals without their approval to strangers. Most importantly, USANA considers the names of its independent Associates to be confidential and trade secret information, and a requirement to disclose this information for this purpose makes it very difficult for USANA to protect its trade secret information and this could damage the company’s business and credibility. I understand and appreciate the FTC’s responsibility to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” but I believe the rule goes too far in trying to protect the public by proposing certain unnecessary and burdensome requirements that will make it very difficult if not impossible for me to sell USANA products. 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, Dawn R. Gay