| Comment Number: | 522418-10765 |
| Received: | 7/16/2006 10:16:18 PM |
| Organization: | dba C & L Enterprises |
| Commenter: | Carl O'Neill |
| State: | TX |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Ref: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 I have personally been involved with direct selling of products since 1987 of which I still actively pursue. This has provided some supplemental income that has definitely assisted with our living costs. Several different businesses have allowed me to better develop personally. Self esteem, confidence, negotiation, compromise and dealing with the public are just a few. I am very concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. In its present form, I feel it will hamper or even prevent me from continuing to have success as a Mannatech Associate. I appreciate the FTC's responsibility to protect the public from wrongful business dealings and practices, but some of the sections will make it very difficult for me to sell Mannatech products. The most disturbing section of the proposed rule is the "seven day waiting period" to enroll new Mannatech members. Mannatech's sales kits start at under $100. Many people buy other items that cost much more and yet do not have to wait the seven days. To me, the proposed waiting period gives the impression there may be something wrong with the plan. I also think this seven day waiting period is unnecessary because Mannatech already has a 90% buy back policy for all products including sales kits purchased by a salesperson within the last twelve months. Under this waiting period requirement, I can see many record keeping and administrative problems. There is no question this will cause unnecessary delays. The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. It does not matter if Mannatech was found innocent. I think this is very unfair that it does not distinguish between winning and losing lawsuits. It does not seem reasonable to me that I would have to disclose those lawsuits unless Mannatech was found guilty. Otherwise, Mannatech and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Mannatech has done nothing wrong. One other situation is the proposed rule requires the disclosure of the minimum of ten prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. I don't mind providing references, but I am very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals to others particularly in this day of identity theft. Giving out this information could damage the business relationship of the references who may be involved in other companies or businesses, including those of competitors. In order to get the ten prior purchasers, I would need to send the addresses of the prospective purchaser to Mannatech headquarters and then wait for the list. The following sentence required by the proposed rule will prevent many people from wanting to sign up as a salesperson -- "if you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to the other buyers." I feel this goes against the very core of privacy and identity theft. Why would personal information be shared with individuals they have never met? I truly appreciate the work of the FTC in protecting us as consumers, but the proposed new rule has many unintended consequesnces and I believe there are less burdensome alternatives available in achieving its goal. I understand there are fraudulent groups out there, but the FTC's proposed rule would unfairly target legitimate direct selling businesses such as Mannatech. Thanks for your time in considering my comments. Keep up the good work your agency does for the public. Sincerely, Carl L. O'Neill