Business Opportunity Rule #522418-11965

Submission Number:
Billie Frank
Initiative Name:
Business Opportunity Rule
Billie Frank Phytoplankton For Health July 17, 2006 Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W) Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 RE: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 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 prevent me from continuing as a distributor for ForeverGreen. I understand that part of the FTC's responsibilities is to protect the public from "unfair and deceptive acts or practices," but some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult if not impossible for me to the ForeverGreen products. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is the seven-day waiting period to enroll new distributors I do not understand how people can go out and buy a car or other expensive item with no waiting period and yet you want to include a business with a $39.95 sign-up fee to have a seven-day waiting period. This is patently absurd. If you feel that you must protect prospective business investors, the law should exempt business opportunities under $500.00. I am working to build financial independence. I have not had any complaints from people who have signed up and decided not to do the business. This waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the plan. I also think this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary, because ForeverGreen already has a 30-day return policy for all products including sales kits purchased by customers and distributors. 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 ForeverGreen is found guilty. Otherwise, ForeverGreen and I are put at an unfair advantage even though ForeverGreen] 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. Personally, no matter how satisfied I am with a product or service, I don't want to take the time as I am busy and also, I feel strongly about the privacy factor. Do you need to hear from 10 satisfied customers when you buy a car or choose a realtor? 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." This is highly inappropriate. If I had to do this when I signed up with ForeverGreen, I would not have done so and I love the company. In a time when we try to protect our privacy and supposedly the government does, this is highly appropriate. 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 have been with ForeverGreen for 3!/2 years. I love and use their products and many of their other products and like to share them with others. Now we depend on this extra income to supplement our budget. We are both senior citizens and facing the prospect of a fixed income. Network marketing helps us to pay the bills. I appreciate the work of the FTC to protect consumers, but I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences and that there are less burdensome Sincerely, Billie Frank