| Comment Number: | 522418-07837 |
| Received: | 7/11/2006 9:02:52 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Maureen McLain |
| State: | FL |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I understand that the Federal Trade Commission must protect the public from "unfair and deceptive acts or practices," but the rule as proposed would make it very difficult for me to operate my business as a Shaklee Independent Distributor. A confusing and burdensome section of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new distributors. Most of the people who sign a Shaklee application are consumers of the products. If they later wish to build a business, all they must do is supply Shaklee Corporation with their Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number. No additional kit, fee or application is required. The Shaklee Member Kit costs only $19.95. This is far less than most consumer purchases, from TVs to all manner of household appliances, none of which require a waiting period. The waiting period is also unnecessary in that Shaklee Corporation already has a 90% buyback policy for products, including the Member Kit, purchased by a distributor within the last two years. The proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. In this day of identity theft, I am uncomfortable giving out the personal information of other Shaklee distributors, without their knowledge or consent. When I buy a TV, car, vitamins at a health store, or any other product the seller is not required to give me 10 references of previous purchasers, so why should we have to do that? It is such an invasion of privacy, not to mention an administrative burden. To obtain the list of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser, I will need to provide Shaklee Corporation with the prospective distributor's address, and wait to receive the list of the 10 nearest distributors who became distributors within the past three years. Each prospective recruit will need a customized disclosure statement. The proposed rule calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits that allege misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices over a 10-year period. It does not matter if the company was found innocent or not liable. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits unless Shaklee Corporation, or its officers, directors or sales department employees, had been found guilty or liable. Fifty-year old companies such as Shaklee would be at a disadvantage compared to start-up companies, which may not yet have experienced litigation but are far more likely to have legal issues surrounding their opportunities. I have been a Shaklee Distributor for four years. Originally, I became a Shaklee Member because I love the Company's nutritional products. They worked so much better than other products on the market and friends started asking about them, so I decided to become a distributor. Becoming a Shaklee Distributor has enabled me to pay for the products I use, and make payments for a new car based on the bonus income I am able to earn. I am earning this income having made no more than a $19.95 initial investment. Now I depend upon this extra income to supplement my budget. I am a teacher, and believe me my income needs supplementation. I urge you to forgo or rewrite the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993, so I can continue to earn an honest income, with a 50-year old company of the highest integrity, without compromising the privacy of purchasers or imposing an unreasonable administrative burden on myself. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Maureen M. McLain Independent Shaklee Distributor Your health IS your wealth, are you investing?