|Received:||7/8/2006 11:32:53 PM|
|Organization:||Digital Business Development|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:The proposal by the Federal Trade Commission to rid the free marketplace of fraudulent opportunities disguised as legitimate business is commendable. However, we who are building businesses powered by Quixtar stand to encounter many negative repercussions from some extreme measures and aspects of the proposal. For example, there is no need in the Quixtar-based opportunity for a 7-day waiting period before a prospect becomes a contractual business owner. Our contract clearly states that new IBOs have three days to rescind the agreement without any penalty or legal obligation, and that any entry fee for membership would be fully refunded upon that decision. Secondly, the disclosure of any legal action taken against Quixtar or its affiliated business owners over the last 10 years, despite its intent to inform the prospect that this and other opportunities have come under litigation, casts a truly tainted and disproportionately negative light on what has been an industry standard (Quixtar) as a business opportunity for many years. Many, indeed most, of the lawsuits presented have no basis. Instead they are the expressions of individuals who routinely have an axe to grind against any such opportunity presented to them because of an unrelated incident they may have experienced and now apply to this opportunity. Also, accusations of legal wrong-doing are an unfortunate and common reality in western society, regardless of their degree of legitimacy against the accused party. Disclosure of these lawsuits would only give already overly skeptical prospects undue reason to doubt the opportunity offered before getting to know the particular person and/or organization making the presentation. Thirdly, we disagree with that aspect of the proposal to disclose the contact information of several other business owners in the general vicinity of the prospect. Not only may unscrupulous IBOs use this unauthorized introduction to a prospect as an opportunity to manipulate the prospect into joining his/her group, but tension and negativity may easily develop between crossline organizations over the unauthorized disclosure of personal information by an IBO who was legally required to do so. Lastly, but not least in importance, is my disagreement with disclosing personal income information from my own Quixtar-powered business. The literature I'm already required to give in my presentation makes clear income representations for average "active" IBOs, as well as gives a definition of the terms. By receiving any additional income information, the prospect may be led to believe that his/her own income possibilities will somehow coincide with or be affected by that of the presenting IBO. In conclusion, most Quixtar-affiliated business builders like myself support any effort on the part of our federal government to distinguish a high-standard, legitimate business opportunity like ours from the ever-increasing criminal outfits that come disguised as income opportunities. However the parts of the FTC's proposal listed above, and some others, would do more harm than good. People looking for ethical, legal, clearly expressed businesses like ours would be denied the opportunity to become involved because of mistaking ours for something fraudulent. Though our opportunity on the surface may resemble a similar structure and format of many of the schemes and deceptive presentations, our reputation with the FTC, the Better Business Bureau and the many state Chambers of Commerce speaks clearly of the high standards we maintain. The FTCs proposal, as currently worded, would be detrimental for all IBOs as well as the direct selling industry, given the current language.