| Comment Number: | 522418-12426 |
| Received: | 7/17/2006 9:39:25 PM |
| Organization: | Self Indulgence |
| Commenter: | Barbra Alberts |
| State: | CO |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam: 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 cause irreparable damage to the Self Indulgence business and Direct Sales Industry as a whole. 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 Self Indulgence products. I fear if this happens, I will be forced to file bankrupcy. I started out as a Self Indulgence Independent Representative over 4 years ago. Originally, I became an Independent Representative in my company because I felt the products were exceptional and I wanted to earn some additional income as well as help others achieve the same. Now, I am part owner in the business. I bought half of the company because I came to believe in the Direct Sales Industry and love the business format. The future of my family is dependent on the stability of the direct selling industry. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new Representatives. Self Indulgence’s sales kit only costs $185.00. People buy TVs, cars, 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 Self Indulgence already has a 90% buyback policy for all products including sales kits purchased by a salesperson within the last twelve months. Under this waiting period requirement, I and my representatives will need to keep very detailed records when they first speak to someone about Self Indulgence and will then need to send in many reports to 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 Self Indulgence is found guilty. Otherwise, Self Indulgence and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Self Indulgence 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 that may be involved in other companies or businesses including those of competitors. 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, Barbra Alberts, Owner Self Indulgence