| Comment Number: | 522418-12216 |
| Received: | 7/17/2006 7:15:01 PM |
| Organization: | Home and Garden Party |
| Commenter: | L Elliott |
| State: | IL |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter because I am concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I believe that in its present form, it could prevent me from continuing as a Home and Garden Party Consultant. I understand that part of the FTC’s responsibilities is to protect the public from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” yet some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for me to sell Home and Garden Party products. I have been a Home and Garden Party consultant for for more than 8 years and have been affiliated with a direct sales companies since 1994. Originally, I became a consultant in my company because I felt the products were exceptional and I wanted to earn some additional income. My family is able to have those little extras that working a full-time job doesn't always cover. I have found both of the direct sales companies I have represented to be honest and have integrity. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new consultants. Home and Garden Party sales kit only costs between $99 - $149. People buy TVs, cars, electronics and other items that cost much more and they do not have to wait seven days. This waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the company or the compensation plan. I also think this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary, because Home and Garden Party already has a one year buyback policy in its applicant agreement. Under this waiting period requirement, I will need to keep very detailed records when I first speak to someone about Home and Garden Party and will then need to send in many reports to my company headquarters. 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 the company was found innocent. Today, anyone or any company can be sued for almost anything. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits unless Home and Garden Party is found guilty. Otherwise, Home and Garden Party and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Home and Garden Party has done nothing wrong. Finally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. I am glad to provide references, but in this day of identity theft, I am very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals (without their approval) to strangers. Also, giving away 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 list of the 10 prior purchasers, I will need to send the address of the prospective purchaser to Home and Garden Party headquarters and then wait for the list. I also think 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 other buyers.” People are very concerned about their privacy and identity theft. They will be reluctant to share their personal information with individuals they may have never met. I appreciate the work that the FTC does to protect consumers, yet I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences and there are less burdensome alternatives available to achieving your goals. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Respectfully, Lynn Elliott