|Received:||7/12/2006 1:06:34 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:Dear Sir or Madam: I write this letter because I am opposed to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. It could prevent me from continuing as a Lia Sophia Advisor, and that would be sad and unfair to me. Although the FTC’s responsibility is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for me to sell Lia Sophia products. Lia Sophia (formerly Lady Remington) provides beautiful jewelry to women, along with a Lifetime Replacement Guarantee that is unparalleled. The guarantee alone provides our customers with confidence of the value of their purchase. One of the parts I oppose the most is the proposed seven day waiting period to register a new Advisor. Our sales kit costs only $99, but because I want my advisors to have a positive income right away, instead of a negative one, I buy their sales kit for them! So there is no cost to them! Why would anyone then want to wait seven days? In those seven days, instead of immersing the new advisor into an exciting world of jewelry, and getting them off to a great start, we’d let precious time go to waste and it could also cause the new advisor to lose enthusiasm or interest. It might also give a new advisor the impression that there is something wrong with the business. Rather than putting my energies into helping the new advisor get organized, trained and excited about her new opportunity, I’d be busy providing her with detailed records and sending reports to my company. Another part I oppose is the requirement to release any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. If the company is found innocent, the new advisor would not have that information! That’s not fair to the advisor, to me or to Lia Sophia. And please don’t forget that we live in a completely litigious society today! Disclosure should only be required if there is a guilty verdict. This proposed rule, if approved, puts me and Lia Sophia at a complete disadvantage. It removes the excitement of getting started in a new business, taints our image, and results in a lot of useless paperwork – when we’ve done nothing wrong! Additionally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. While I don’t mind providing references to my customers, I will not do so without obtaining permission from those references. I don’t want to put them at risk in today’s world of identity theft. Furthermore, if I am spending time getting permission from references to give out their names and phone numbers, it could taint my business relationship with those references. Also, to provide the list of 10 prior purchasers nearest the newest buyer, I’d have to contact Lia Sophia and wait for them to reply. Another waste of time. Who buys anything anywhere where they have to wait for days to get the names of 10 past buyers? This requirement is ridiculous, in my opinion. Finally, I think the sentence of the proposed rule that states, “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers,” could prevent someone from signing up as an advisor. People don’t want their privacy infringed upon! I appreciate the work the FTC does to protect consumers. But I also believe this proposed new rule has unintended consequences. Most of us, like all businesses, work ethically and honestly. Please let us continue to do so without unnecessary burdens. Thank you for considering my comments.