|Received:||7/8/2006 10:56:14 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:I am opposed to proposed Business Opportunity Rule, R511993. The rule imposes very onerous burdens on people who are often working out of their home hoping to earn an income. My wife and I are XanGo distributors with a very small down line. We do not now make enough money to pay for our juice. If this rule were to come into place it would likely make it impossible for us to earn earn enough money to pay for the juice we consume. Meanwhile, it would not prevent fraudulent disclosures by fraudulent companies or individuals. The $500 investment apparently required in the current rule is reasonable. XanGo charges $35.00 for people to join. I have had people, including an uncle, who purchased the product and asked for a refund. He got the refund immediately. Meanwhile, my wife and I would find it impossible to know who are the ten closest people who have purchased the product and would have a hard time getting updated information from XanGo to provide to the consumers. It seems that the same objective could be achieved by requiring that people who sign up be allowed the opportunity cancel their membership as a distributor within 7 days and that the company (in this case XanGo) be required to have all of its distributors (including my wife) give a website address where information that you believe should be disclosed is available for review. This would serve teh same objective of giving people 7 days to avoid being defrauded, but would not put an onerous burden on the small time distributor. In addition to it being difficult to know who the ten nearest consumers of XanGo are, it also appears that a disclosure of the consumers name and address would violate the consumers' right of privacy. I certainly do not want my address given out to total strangers who I am not doing business with and otherwise probably would not ever meet. I cannot see any advantage to requiring us to disclose if we have ever been sued for fraud. I am an attorney and know that it is very easy to allege fraud, but fraud is very difficult to prove. Requring somebody to disclose they have been sued for fraud does not actually tell the potential consumer anything. I have seen people sued for fraud when the proof was not really there. Your proposed requirement misses the mark.