| Comment Number: | 522418-09007 |
| Received: | 7/13/2006 7:31:04 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Anderson |
| State: | AZ |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I agree that something should be done to help insure someone's well being, but I do not agree with the associate/distributor cancellation ruling. It could give people the wrong impression due to the fact that a large percentage of distributors do not and will never do anything with their distributorship anyway. Life happens and mindset is a major issue with most people. Look at all the poor people in this country who all have the same opportunity as everyone else but do not take advantage of their opportunity but instead complain. Maybe we should be blaming the FTC. Makes as much sense. This ruling makes no sense either. A list of the 10 closest current or past distributors/associates to your prospect, with personal information so that your purchasers may contact these references. For what? To determine those people are lazy or not. What's the point. Imagine if you bought an appliance and the stores policy were you purchased it from was that you must take the calls from everyone of their customers just so you could tell that customer you think of your purchase. Who in their right mind would want an aggravation like that? It's not fair to the distributors/associates. Lawsuits rulings against the company. I agree that lawsuits against a company are important to consider, but merely having been sued is NOT the same as having been found guilty. How would those who are making these ruling recommendations like to be sued for something where they were not guilty of any wrong doing, and then have to answer for the charges when ever they turn around? Let's have someone with a little common sense argue the rationality of some of these rulings.