Comment Number: 522418-10119
Received: 7/15/2006 6:52:38 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Dolores Keenan
State: KS
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

Dear Sirs: As a small home-based business owner I would ask that you please consider the enclosed aspects and concerns as related to your "Business Opportunity Rule, R511993". As a consumer, I appreciate the objective you are pursuing. Indeed, there should be protection for consumers against fraudulent and usurious business practices. I would be among the first to applaud such actions. However, I don't feel that the proposed action will necessarily be as effective at obtaining this objective, as it can be potentially to harmful those of us who operate within the home-based and direct-sales business models with integrity and whose parent companies behave in the same way. Please consider the following points as you seek to determine your course of action: The 7-Day waiting period will be a real burden and deterrent to those of us who often prospect 'on the road', by making it nearly impossible to complete any business transaction within the restricted time period allowed by the very fact that we are on the road. The expense in time and cost to our businesses in trying to comply with this ruling could very well shut some of our fledgling businesses down, and at the very least, make a huge impact on the amount of work we can accomplish even as established entrepreneurs. It seems to me that someone who is bent on using fraudulent practices can keep up a front for seven days; comply with those who wish to press this issue, and still continue to operate fraudulently. Why? Because all business people know that prospecting is a numbers game. Based on the law of averages, they can reckon that even though a percentage of folks may change their minds, others will continue into the transaction anyway. Of those who do continue, only a percentage will actually pursue any real type of serious action against them, once they are dicovered. The waiting period can be devastating to an honest business person. But a fraud will wait around, take the money, and run. After all, they aren't really intent on building a business. They do what they do to make a quick-buck. How many of them disappear in a puff of smoke? Also, potentially crippling to the honest business is the fact that a 7-day waiting period will have the effect of making even an honest business look suspicious to a new prospect. Many may change their minds simply out of fear of possibly losing something, even after doing their research. Again, this will hurt the honest small-business. The List of nearest references question raises an issue in my mind of what constitutes a real threat to my privacy and safety! I am a female, and don't appreciate the idea of having my personal information made public. Who knows the character of those who will be privy to such information? In this day and age this could be a terrible mistake, affecting the thousands of business-women, especially those working at home. Not only that, but in our business model, which is MLM, this type of information, being provided to anyone who 'shows an interest' can also be obtained dishonestly, not only by our competitors, but by persons of criminal intent as well. Please reconsider this proposal! It not only poses an burden on ourselves and our parent-companies, but is fraught with opportunities for even more fraudulent activity by those so inclined. As for the matter of the Earnings claim statement, honest companies don't even engage in making such claims! I, personally, would be suspect of any company that did. Sometimes we just have to use the common sense the Good Lord gave us. You can't legislate control over peoples' insistence to exercise their own foolishness! Besides, a fraudulent person or company won't be deterred by this; they will simply provide inaccurate information anyway. In the mater of Disclosure of legal actions, the language of this rule is so broad as to be as clear as mud. That it doesn’t even concern itself with the actual outcome of a given litigation, seems to me to be evidence that this section is in need of reworking. Although I understand the idea behind this ruling, and even agree with it in principle, as it stands, I see no merit in it whatsoever. And when it encompasses any and all litigation, whether or not it applies to the business, with all due respect, it bears the appearance of a fishing expedition. How will this protect a potential consumer? This part of the proposal could be of merit if it were rewritten with an eye to clarity and purpose. Once again, I ask that you please reconsider the implications of this proposal. Of course they are more far-reaching than what I have stated here. I have simply chosen these points because their potential ability to cripple the home-based businesses, being operated by thousands of persons of integrity in this country. This country needs all the financial resources it can muster; don't you agree? Why endanger an entire industry which is shown to be a strong contributor in our economy? Thank you for your kind time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, Dolores Keenan, DBA. The Greater Goods