Business Opportunity Rule #522418-12212

Submission Number:
522418-12212
Commenter:
J Reb
State:
IA
Initiative Name:
Business Opportunity Rule
I am concerned about proposed Rule: R511993. I understand the responsibilities of the FTC are to protect the public from "unfair and deceptive acts or practices," However, I believe that this proposed rule makes unnecessary requirements, rules, controls & other unauthorized stipulations that may very well prohibit myself & countless Americans the ability to use, create & otherwise provide a source of income for themselves in a wholesome, healthy environment now & in the future via direct selling or NMC (Network Marketing Companies). I do NOT believe the FTC has authority, right, privilege or obligation to mandate any rules, stipulations or requirements on a "specific target group" or any group by enforcing R511993. By doing so, the FTC will unduly limit the ability of these Americans to be successful as they are dependent on the stability of the direct selling industry. 7-Day Waiting Period: This 7 day rule to enroll new distributors is overally obtrusive & destructive. This waiting period gives the impression that there may be something wrong w/the company or compensation plan. It gives an air of caution & will cause distrust between distributors & potential distributors. No other corp or companies are so restricted by a 7-day waiting period before they are able to "hire or enlist" individuals in their company or business. They are not required to keep the same burdensome, detailed records regarding every single person that they spoke with regarding their company that this ruling proposes to take against NMC. Litigation Information The proposed rule calls for the release of any info regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation or unfair or deceptive practices, regardless of whether the company was found innocent or not. What's the purpose here? Control? Manipulation? Do other employers across the country have to disclose up front any litigation or lawsuits they might be involved in b4 they hire an employee? It makes no sense that anyone should have to disclose any lawsuits within any company, if they have not been proven, or found guilty. Otherwise, they're being put at an unfair business disadvantage. Perhaps the FTC should investigate lawsuits re: misrepresentation or unfair or deceptive practices in existing companies, agencies, corporations presently in place. ie: Drug & Insurance Companies, & even the FDA - as it also operates under the guise of "protecting the public". References: The proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. Privacy is of utmost importance w/identity theft rampant in this country already! Giving away this info could damage the business relationship of references that may be involved in other companies or businesses, including those of competitors & cause distrust & what safety purpose would this provide? This would jeopardize a distributor's ability to "close a sale"or otherwise "enlist" them as distributors, preferred or retail customers if R511993 were passed. This is unnecessary & appears to attempt to intimidate & further hinder honest business practices w/in a NMC. Cancellation: Maintaining such lists & providing them to every potential distributor & wholesale customer would be an unrealistic burden. Americans frequently exercise their right to "drop out" of many NMC & no longer purchase from that company due to many factors. (Lack of desire, loss of interest, medical reasons, death, unrealistic expectations etc) This cancellation proposal has no reasonable validation in NMC or R511993. Exemption: The FTC's Franchise Rule included only those opportunities that required a buyer to make a pay't of at least $500 w/in the 1st 6 mo of operation. The FTC said in '79 "When the req investment to purchase a business opportunity is comparatively small, prospective purchasers face a relatively small financial risk." This is still true today. & this should be reinstated minimally. T-you J Reb