Comment Number: 522418-09372
Received: 7/14/2006 1:09:17 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Harris
State: MD
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

I have been a distributor for 28 years. I left my job as an attorney after 4.5 years and have lived off this business income since Sept 0f 1982. When I saw the plan I was cautioned to make a premature decision. Give it a week, go over the material provided, and then make a decision. I was assured that if I changed my mind, a full refund was available. That is still the policy. I offer a money back, satisfaction guarantee on all products sold. I can count the refunds in 28 years on one hand. This company has always gone above and beyond the call to stand behind the products and any claims related to products. I got a refund on a Christmas tree one February after I made an off-hand remark to an order taker about cutting off the bottom of the tree to elliminate a slight bend. Often, when a product has arrived damaged in shipping a refund or replacement is sent without need to return the damaged item. That is service. With the advent of the internet, information about this company, both true and false, is abundant. I refer those who need to do some research to the U.S. Chamber, the Better Business Bureau, The Direct Sellers Association, and Dunn and Bradstreet. If that is not good enough for them, then I deem them too risk averse to be business owners and I leave them to others to coddle. The following are objectionable aspects of the proposed rule-making: 1] A seven day waiting period before signing up is contrary to public policy. There is no such waiting period in most places to buy a gun, a car, or an airline ticket, all presenting greater danger to the public. 2] The vast majority of new IBOs are brand new to business and are terrified of talking to people. A seven day wait would mean that many who would have discovered the joys of business ownership would have been frightened out of their decision by the nay sayers. Could there be any more efficient way to kill the greatest single incubator of entrepreneurial thinking for the largest company of its type in the US? 3] Since Quixtar offers a money back policy to any new IBO, they can change their minds after signing up. That is sufficient protection for the confused or fearful. 4] Offering a prospect a list of litigation and complaints when litigation and complaints are the exception by a long shot is over kill. It would make a lot more sense for the FTC simply to do their job and go after the handful of real crooks rather than create an undue burden for millions of honest IBOs. The enforcement of a provision like this would require a huge government bureaucracy. If you want such a large government presence in the market, create it to protect us from another Enron where there is real harm going on. Quit picking on the little guys and go after the bona fide bad guys. 5] The same applies to the requirement to provide references. See the above regarding "Enron"-magnitude issues. What references did "Kenny Boy" provide before he was allowed to advise his employees how to handle their investments? What references were provided by the Multi-level subcontractor scam of cleanup artists after Katrina where the people who really did the work were paid a fraction of what the big guys made off with while contributing no labor, resources or supervision? 6] Lastly, I suggest, before this is seen for what it is - a pretense at oversight - and it becomes another embarrassment when the real problems of protecting consumers are being ignored, that this idea be shelved. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue. This has my means of making a living for decades. Make it easy to sue the bad guys and make it expensive to wrongly accuse the good guys.