| Comment Number: | 522418-10643 |
| Received: | 7/16/2006 7:49:15 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Arlin Harder |
| State: | FL |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
RE: “Business Opportunity Rule, R511993” Dear Sirs, As a person that needs additional income and am trying to work into a home based business, I am concerned about the implications for me under the new proposed “Business Opportunity Rule, R511993”. I understand the intentions of the FTC are to protect the public from fraudulent activities of unethical and unscrupulous people. My concern is that the wide net being spread to stop the potential fraude will become a heavy burden on those who honestly are attempting to make a home based business successful. With the recently released new jobs report by the government, there is much discussion about the economic growth spurt which is a result of the tax reduction. More jobs are created from the home based businesses today than what are being created through the large companies, which are the basis of the government report. I believe this “Business Opportunity Rule, R511993” will definitely have a negative effect on this current growth. I have been involved in sales organizations in various forms from direct selling to managing for years. The requirement of a “seven day waiting period” for a direct sales business such as the Xango distribution my wife and I are currently involved with, would be devastating. As it is, “the guarantee money back if not satisfied” is there to satisfy any potential over zealously sold product to an unsuspecting soul. The period will slow down the sales process to the point I believe that it will be impossible to be sucessful to sell direct. The burcratic process needed to follow up on this will only make it very difficult for a new startup to be compliant and to be successful at the same time. Many will think that if the FTC has these regulations in place there must be something inherently wrong with the company. Obviously, this isn’t the intent of the FTC and therefore, I request this not be required of someone like me. The bookkeeping that is necessary for the “earnings claim statement” in itself is very burdensome to a new startup. Businesses that have to create a heavy overhead to meet federal regulations will never become successful due to the high cost of operations during those first years of trying to setup and become successful financially. Although I agree with the FTC about the need for the individual to correctly represent the information to the new prospect, the disclosure, as I understand it,that would be part of the proposed ruling neither resolves the problem nor makes it workable for a new startup business. The idea also infringes on the individual privacy guaranteed by the revised privacy laws as they stand today. I have nothing to hide in my past but I don’t think it’s correct for an individual to have to make legal matters public if they have been resolved adequately. I check the BBB for information regarding companies I look into doing business with. The only information that BBB shows is complaints and whether they were satisfactorily resolved during the XX period of time. I don’t think it is good to require information disclosure, which in the vast majority of cases,has not been requested by the prospective client. This again not only infringes on the privacy of the individual but also makes the sales process more difficult unnecessarily. I recommend that some of these concerns being addressed in the “Business Opportunity Rule, R511993” be covered by allowing the private sector to police itself through associations like “Direct Sales Association” etc. I also think that some of these requirements being proposed might be applicable after a home based business reaches a minimum volume. Thank you for considering these concerns regarding the proposed ruling. Sincerely, A concerned home based business owner, Arlin & Cathie Harder