Comment Number: 522418-06822
Received: 7/7/2006 4:05:07 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Brad Codd
State: CA
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

I am completely opposed to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. It is my opinion that the existing rules and laws are sufficient for enforcement purposes. The reality is that this proposed rule will merely be ignored by scammers and will ultimately fail to have any effect on combating fraud. On the other hand this rule has the potential to utterly destroy the multi-billion dollar network marketing and direct sales industries. This proposed rule is bad for sellers, is bad for buyers, is bad for the economy, and is bad for the country. The rule should not be implemented in any form whatsoever for the following reasons: 1. Merely failing to perform some burdensome administrative functions would result in a seller becoming a criminal. It is unrealistic and patently absurd to deliberately require honest, hard working, sellers to jump through ridiculous administrative hoops just so that it easy for enforcement agencies to classify a seller as a law breaker. The rationalization that this rule would only be implemented against the most egregious offenders is dangerous and should be given absolutely no consideration. It is a well understood principle that in order to boil a frog one need only employ the tactic of starting with cold water and then gradually increasing the temperate one degree at a time until the water is boiling. We have too many instances of this tactic being employed to get some moderately innocuous rule adopted and then, over time, gradually increasing its scope until the net is so broad that persons not originally defined as targets become victims of prosecution. 2. Requiring a seller to publish a list of customers, as a concept, is so flawed, in so many ways, that requiring this is counterproductive to the interests of both the seller and the buyer. For example: 2.1. These lists will be used by sexual predators to violate the rights and privacy to female sellers and their children. Any sane woman should and will instantly quit being a seller rather than risk the certainty of themselves and their children being subjected to sexual harassment and sexual violation. This rule will deprive woman and their families of millions, if not billions, of dollar in income. Without the contribution of these women all network marketing and direct sales organizations, specifically, and the industry, in general, will be utterly destroyed. 2.2 These lists will be used by con artists for identity theft. Any reasonable buyer should and will refuse to agree to have their personal information publicly published. The economic harm that this rule will cause sellers will be in the range of thousands of dollars per identity theft. 2.3. These lists are the trade secret of sellers and will be used by competitors to economically harm sellers. The economic harm that this rule will cause sellers will be in the range of tens of thousands of dollars per trade secret theft. 3. Requiring sellers to disclose all litigation to buyers is discriminating against sellers. I’m not aware of this being a requirement for any other community. And even if it is employed elsewhere it is certainly not common practice and was almost certainly effected in exchange for a benefit. I fail to see the benefit to sellers in exchange for giving up this important right. Classifying sellers as guilty without first being convicted in a court of law is a travesty of justice and should not be permitted. It is my opinion that any organizations and individuals who support the implementation of this rule should, and must, be classified as conspirators who are furthering their own agenda and not the interests of the American public. Both these organizations and individuals should expect to be, and must, be held accountable for the damages that will be caused by the adopting of this irresponsible rule. For the reasons listed above, and for the many other reasons, do not adopt this rule. Brad Codd Laguna Hills, CA