Comment Number: 522418-10611
Received: 7/16/2006 7:00:05 PM
Organization: Quixtar
Commenter: Justin Griffith
State: MO
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

I applaud the FTC for taking an active concern in ensuring that the right to free enterprise remains a legitimate opportunity here in the Unted States. In the past seven years as an Independent Business Owner affiliated with Quixtar, a subsidiary of Alticor Inc., one of the largest hurdles I face is dealing with people's prior experiences with "get-rich-quick schemes." It seems there are many individuals who abuse the word "opportunity" and convince people to hand over large sums of money to them. My business, powered by Quixtar, couldn't be farther from that. The individuals I am deciding whether or not to mentor must first demonstrate some accountabilty by consistently attending training sessions. I, in turn, then must prove to them that the business will work for them -- in other words, taking my time, resources, and skills to help them first. If the business is then a good fit for both of us, my future business partner then registers with Quixtar at the cost of $170 which includes licensing, periodicals, and sample products -- all of which carry a 6 month refundable guarantee. During this start-up process, I am already having to overcome the indivdual's, in many cases, prior bad experiences to earn his or her trust. Many of the proposed changes by the FTC would make an already difficult process nearly insurmountable. For instance, when I go to buy a car from a dealer, am I presented every lawsuit that anybody filed against that car manufacturer? Is it required that the seller present me with 10 other satisfied customers of the same model of car? Is it required that I am shown all the other prices that car is being sold for in the area? Am I required to wait 7 days before I can buy? The same reasons that the above scenarios would be incredibly burdensome to car dealers also applies to my business. Would it not be better to deal with the legitimate problems of some individuals abusing business opportunites to make money and run, the same way that if a car dealer clearly lied about a car I purchased and has a history of doing so -- in other words through the judicial system? Obviously I care a great deal what choices you make with reference to these rules. I appeal to you not to impose such constricting regulations. My business, powered by Quixtar, is the primary source of income that allows my wife to be home and raising our family -- a situation that I believe is ensuring a stronger America. I would stand by any ruling that requires businesses such as ours to list average monthly income amounts, but like the 7-day rule, the reference rule, and the lawsuit rule, showing our potential partners what we make needs to be not mandated. I have seen where real checks that reflected six figures actually caused some new business partners to sensationalize our opportunity. That's why it would be better to require an average monthly income for an active business person. Thank you for considering these comments. The decisions you make will greatly affect my ability to conduct business and the financial security of my family.