The following are point by point comments in response to the subject ANPR. The comments are in bold.

Previous comments submitted in May 2022 “earnings claims” input request:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0020-1572?fbclid=IwAR3g0OuHB2gjn9_-
UGTaLghjGVNeJItYq00edCZyRVa3P9xIIbU3pZa3Kfk should be considered in their entirety, assumed to
be applicable, and incorporated in this Business Opportunity Rule revision submittal.

This submittal will, as the May 2022 “earnings claims” submittal, be harsh with the FTC. However, I
believe the FTC clamping down on the entire MLM industry is the only method that will significantly
shrink MLM scams. Also note the pro-MLM comments in the “earnings claims” submittals were filled
with erroneous ideas, exaggerations, and outright lies. The DSA submittal in the FTC v. Neora lawsuit is
another example of outright false claims, and make no mistake that the DSA is the large MLMs’ puppet.
The false claim that the FTC is “moving the goalposts” regarding retail sales is ridiculous, Amway’s own
basis for not being an illegal pyramid in 1979 was the 10 customer rule, among other pre-FTC lawsuit
rules, which were not enforced by Amway. The “end/ultimate user” is another term the DSA/MLM
industry takes out of context and tries to equate distributor internal consumption with outside retail
sales to real customers. It is beyond the scope of this submittal to rebut them all but I would be
delighted to discuss these submittals at a conference.

[Billing Code: 6750-01S]

Matter: R511993

Program Code J07

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 437

RIN 3084-AB04

Business Opportunity Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Regulatory review; advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is requesting public comment on its
“Business Opportunity Rule” (“Rule”), the trade regulation rule governing the sale of certain business
opportunities. The FTC lawyers blew it in the first sentence. All an MLM has to do is not require any
money for signing up somebody, hence there is no “sale,” as Amway in the UK was forced to do in
2008: The 2008 Amway Smackdown | AmwayUK (wordpress.com) and the MLM no longer falls under
this definition and is free and clear to scam people. Change the words “sale of” to “participation in”
and this issue is fixed. Keep in mind - Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The FTC should read and consider the entire Amway/UK settlement for applicability in the U.S. for all
MLMs, including no signup/renewal fee, having retail sales prior to being authorized to recruit others
(ensure there are safeguards in place to prevent getting around this issue, such as contacting those
who quit, as described in my “earnings claims” submittal, to determine whether they bought products
just so their recruiter could sign them up and the newly minted distributors continue the pattern),
having zero (or known) profit on the tools, the annual earnings disclosure, which should include
typical tool profits, which can be 10X or more of their MLM product-based profit: MonaVie's top guy:
The richest multilevel networker of all - The Salt Lake Tribune (sltrib.com) and overhead costs as well,
as described by former FTC commissioner Noah Phillips over two years ago: Keynote Remarks of
Commissioner Phillips at the DSA Legal & Regulatory Summit (ftc.gov) etc., with no action known to
the author of this submittal since. The MLM can make plenty of money with overpriced products (and
the Amway upline, with the ATS (Amway Tool Scam) secret profits from the ATS (Stop The Amway
Tool Scam | Amway and the LCKs Caught Me (AND millions of others) – Hook, Line, and Sinker, But
The Good Guys Always Win In The End (wordpress.com)), there is no need for a signup/renewal fee,
just increase the prices a bit to make up for these fees. The Commission is soliciting comments about
the efficiency, costs, benefits, and regulatory impact of the Rule, as part of its ten-year regulatory review
plan. The Commission is also soliciting comments to inform its consideration of whether the Rule should
be extended to include business opportunities and other money-making opportunity programs not
currently covered by the Rule, including business coaching and work-from-home programs, investment
coaching programs, and e-commerce opportunities. Yes to all of the above. MLM “coaches” are
typically failed MLMers who realized the real money is in the “coaching” and not the MLM products.
Amway has been promoting themselves as an “e-commerce” business since the advent of Quixtar in
1999 until the current day, so there is overlap in these terms. All interested persons are hereby given
notice of the opportunity to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the Rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the Instructions for
Submitting Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Business
Opportunity Rule ANPR, 16 CFR Part 437, Project No. R511993,” on your comment, and file your
comment online through https://www.regulations.gov. If you prefer to file your comment on paper,
mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580. FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine M. Todaro, (202) 326- 3711, ctodaro@ftc.gov, Melissa Dickey, (202)
326-2662, mdickey@ftc.gov, or Andrew Hudson, (202) 326-2213, ahudson@ftc.gov, Division of
Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mailstop CC-5201, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Commission issued the Business Opportunity Rule pursuant to its authority under Sections 5
and 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to proscribe unfair or deceptive acts or practices 1 The
Business Opportunity Rule requires business opportunity sellers (to eliminate confusion and as
described above, the term “sellers” should be changed to “offerors” throughout this document) to
furnish prospective purchasers2 (similarly, the term “prospective purchasers” should be changed to
“prospects” throughout this document) a disclosure document that provides information regarding the
seller, the seller’s business, and the nature of the proposed business opportunity, as well as additional
information to substantiate any claims about actual or potential sales, income, or profits for a
prospective business ______________________________________________
1
Business Opportunity Rule Statement of Basis and Purpose, 76 FR 76858 (Dec. 8, 2011). Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Section 18 of the
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, permits the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with
specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 5.
2
Prospective business opportunity purchaser” is a broad term; it includes individuals seeking to purchase a business or money-
making opportunity but can also include job seekers who encounter marketing for business opportunities. The definition needs
to be broad enough to include business opportunities that have no costs to join, as described above.
2

opportunity purchaser. The seller must also preserve information that forms a reasonable basis for such
claims.

The Rule is designed to ensure that prospective purchasers receive information to help them
evaluate business opportunities. Sellers must disclose five key items of information in a simple, one-
page document: (1) the seller’s identifying information; (2) whether the seller makes a claim about the
purchaser’s likely (the term “likely” should be defined, such as the average, median, best-case, etc.)
earnings) (and, if yes, the seller must provide information supporting any such claims); (3) whether the
seller, its affiliates, or key personnel have been involved in certain (which “certain” legal actions is the
FTC proposing should be considered?) legal actions (and, if yes, the seller must provide a separate list of
those actions); (4) whether the seller has a cancellation or refund policy (and, if yes, the seller must
provide a separate document stating the material terms of such policies); and (5) a list of persons (this is
of negligible benefit without contact information, fallout rate, average gains/losses, etc.) who have
purchased the business opportunity within the previous three years. Misrepresentations and omissions
are prohibited under the Rule, and, for sales conducted in languages other than English, all disclosures
must be provided in the language in which the sale is conducted.

Under the Rule, a “business opportunity” means a “commercial arrangement” in which a “seller
solicits a prospective purchaser to enter into a new business”; the “prospective purchaser makes a
required payment”(see above regarding no-cost joining); and the “seller, expressly or by implication,
orally or in writing, represents that the seller or one or more designated persons will” either (1) provide
locations for the purchaser’s equipment, such as a vending machine; (2) provide outlets, accounts, or
customers for the purchaser’s goods or services; or (3) buy back any or all of the goods or services that
the purchaser makes or provides.3

______________________________________________
3
16 CFR 437.1(c).

3
 The Business Opportunity Rule arose out of the Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions
Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures Rule (“Original Rule”), which addressed
deceptive and unfair practices in the sale of franchises and business opportunity ventures. 4 In March
2007, the FTC bifurcated the Original Rule into a Franchise Rule and Interim Business Opportunity Rule
in order to require different kinds of pre-sale disclosures and related regulatory provisions. 5 The Interim
Business Opportunity Rule was similar in substance to the Original Rule. On March 1, 2012, the
Commission’s Revised Business Opportunity Rule took effect and, among other things, expanded the
types of covered business opportunities and simplified and streamlined the disclosures provided to
prospective business opportunity purchasers.6

Since the Rule took effect, the Commission has continued to vigorously challenge misleading
earnings claims. “Vigorously challenge” does not mean going after an MLM or two every couple of
years, it means meaningful industry-wide directives, most notably the level of retail sales and
profits/losses from overhead purchases. The FTC should obtain a generous dose of humility. For
example, the FTC has brought cases under section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, against business
coaching and work-from-home programs, investment coaching programs, and e-commerce
opportunities.7 Despite the aggressive enforcement program at the Commission, deceptive earnings
claims continue to proliferate in the marketplace, and many of them are not covered by the Rule.
Among other things, this ANPR solicits input on whether the Rule should be expanded.

II. Regulatory Review of the Business Opportunity Rule

The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information

______________________________________________
4
Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures Rule Statement of Basis
and Purpose, 43 FR 59614 (Dec. 21, 1978).

5
Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising & Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning
Business Opportunities, 72 FR 15444 (Mar. 30, 2007).

6
Business Opportunity Rule Statement of Basis and Purpose, 76 FR 76817 (Dec. 8, 2011).

7
See Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Deceptive or Unfair Earnings Claims, 87 FR 13951, 13952 n.16.

about their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting
consumers and helping industry to avoid deceptive or unfair practices. These reviews assist the
Commission in identifying rules and guides that may warrant modification or rescission.

With this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission initiates such a review. The
Commission solicits comments on, among other things: (1) the economic impact of, and the continuing
need for, the Rule; (2) the Rule’s benefits to consumers; (3) and the burden it places on industry
members subject to the requirements, in particular small businesses.
III. Issues for Comment

To aid commenters in submitting information, the Commission has prepared the following
questions related to the Business Opportunity Rule. The Commission seeks comments on these and any
other issues related to the Rule’s current requirements. The Commission will also consider any
comments previously submitted in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning
Deceptive or Unfair Earnings Claims8 that are relevant to these questions or any other issues related to
the Business Opportunity Rule’s current requirements. The Commission requests that responses to its
questions be as specific as possible. Commenters should provide any available evidence, including
empirical analyses, that supports their position. Where comments advocate a change to the Rule, please
be specific in stating the unfair or deceptive act or practice to

______________________________________________
8
Id. (comment period closed May 10, 2022). In that matter, No. R111003, the Commission solicited and received comments
about the following industries: multilevel marketers, for-profit schools, and gig platforms (As with the Business Opportunty
Rule over a decade ago, virtually all of the comments were in regards to MLMs. Unfortunately the FTC, in a head scratcher, in
practical terms, excluded MLMs from the Rule. The evidence is the FTC had a list of issues they were determined to
implement and when the MLMs made reasoned arguments against implementing this issues the FTC did not seriously
consider other ideas, such as ensuring Amway’s tool scam was addressed, they punted. This should not be repeated.). The
Commission will consider whether to propose one or more rules addressing the topics raised in those comments as part of that
rulemaking, where it may also address other topics raised in that advance notice of proposed rulemaking relating to deceptive
or unfair earnings claims. I would like to think this addresses the above issue but I’ve learned to not get my hopes up.

which the change relates, provide evidence of the pervasiveness of the act or practice, and describe the
suggested change and any potential costs or benefits the change might create for prospective
purchasers and business opportunity sellers.

A. General Regulatory Review Questions

1. Need: Is there a continuing need for the Rule? Why or why not? Yes, the situation is
more out of control today than it ever has been, particularly in terms of lack of retail sales and
tool scams.

2. Benefits and Costs to Consumers: What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers,
and does the Rule impose any significant costs on consumers? Please quantify these benefits
and costs wherever possible. In the MLM industry, very little in benefits across the industry,
with some notably rare exceptions, namely Vemma, Herbalife, and AdvoCare.

3. Benefits and Costs to Industry Members: What benefits has the Rule provided to
businesses, and does the Rule impose any significant costs, including costs of compliance, on
businesses and in particular small businesses? Please quantify these benefits and costs wherever
possible. Since the industry has largely ignored the Rule, the benefit is industry members are
scamming a paper tiger regulator, with virtually zero costs.
 4. Impact on Information: What impact has the Rule had on the flow of truthful
information to consumers and on the flow of misleading information to consumers? The Rule
itself has had virtually no impact on the flow of truthful information, the internet has made
some headway but the vast majority of those on social media are motivated by drama,
emotional outbursts, throwing their hands in the air, etc., to make money, while not
addressing the real issues, listed in number 1 above.

5. Compliance: Provide any evidence concerning the degree of industry compliance with
the Rule. Does this evidence indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why and how? If
not, why not? There is little to no compliance with the Rule and grossly inadequate regulatory
enforcement of the Rule. The DSSRC has submitted several obvious violations and the FTC has
done NOTHING publicly with any of them. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-
0020-1563 This does not engender public confidence in the FTC. Virtually all MLMs share the
same illegal behaviors but the large MLM scams that run the DSA and therefore throttle the
DSSRC, are not reported by the DSSRC. The implication is that there are just a few “bad
actors” in MLM-land when it comes to retail sales and tool scams, yet nothing could be further
from the truth. There have been reports that the amount of income and products claims have
decreased on social media, but that probably means the MLMs are merely being more careful
publicly, as Amway always has been, and in private the same claims are continuing. As
suggested in my “earnings claims” submittal, the solution is to perform interviews after
distributors quit. As the late/great Rush Limbaugh used to say, “Don’t…Doubt…Me.” Most of
the other MLM “experts,” such as the people populating the past two years at
www.MLMConference.com, have either never been in an MLM and don’t want to get
perspective from people such as myself who know what I’m talking about or had brief
experience and never researched the facts and also don’t want to listen to a different, and
correct, perspective. In fact, the organizer of the conference, a college business professor,
wasn’t even interested in discussing why retail sales are critical, and it’s all documented in a
series of emails which are available upon request. To be clear: the root cause analysis, which I
have received formal training as a U.S. Naval officer and civilian nuclear power system
engineer/Project Completion Manager, and Emergency Planning Supervisor, showing lack of
retail sales is the fundamental problem with MLMs and the importance of cannot be
overestimated. The entire dynamic of MLMs would be transformed if the FTC put more
emphasis on this aspect of business model, with or without a Rule change. For example,
review AdvoCare’s revenue before and after their settlement, it went from about $750
million/year using the MLM model immediately prior to the settlement to $50 million using a
direct sales model after the settlement, a reduction of about 93%. It’s been nearly a half-
century, and will probably be over a half-century by the time a decision is made, since FTC
Commission Dixon remarked on the Koscot case in 1975, “What compels the categorical
condemnation of entrepreneurial chains under Section 5 is, however, the inevitably deceptive
representation (conveyed by their mere existence) that any individual can recoup his or her
investment by means of inducing others to invest. That these schemes so often do not allow
recovery of investments by means of retail sales either merely points up that there is very
little positive value to be lost by not allowing such schemes to get started in the first place.”
and, “It is regrettably clear that responsible authorities, including this Commission, have acted
far too slowly to protect consumers from the manipulations of respondents [Koscot] and
others like them.” Dixon swerved very close to the solution pointed out in my “earnings
claims” comments regarding the importance of retail sales (see the definition of retail sales in
the earlier comments as well), but then swerved away. So close and yet so far away. There is
no problem with an MLM offering incentives for distributors to purchase huge amounts of
significantly discounted products to sell to their downline at a lesser discount as Koscot did
and virtually all current MLMs do, but IF AND ONLY IF these purchases are offset by all of the
distributors’ retail sales from the top to bottom of the organizations. This self-governing
aspect will fix the problem. But the emphasis must change from the erroneous “running out of
customers” to the correct “free market demand.” Also note that Dixon lamented how “far too
slowly” the FTC has to protect consumers from MLM scams - this was nearly a HALF-CENTURY
ago and when the MLM scams were considerably fewer in number and size. For the MLM
scams that not only have lack of retail sales but tool scams as well (the poster-child
representative of this is Amway: www.StopTheAmwayToolScam.wordpress.com). I notified
the FTC almost two decades ago in 2006 about Amway’s tool scam and became a footnote in
the Federal Register:
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/business-
opportunity-rule-16-cfr-part-437/080326businessopportunityrule20.pdf, search for Scott
Johnson. It is critical to understand the overhead costs are very high and, at least as
significant, the profits are astronomical for high-level Amway IBO scam artists:
https://stoptheamwaytoolscam.wordpress.com/what-is-the-basis-of-the-real-amway-tool-
scam-size/. The examples found on the previous link are typical, not outliers, and from several
different decades, lines of sponsorship, etc. Amway IBO scam artists that achieve the Diamond
level typically regress back to a lower pin, such as Emerald soon after achieving the Diamond
level and would have to get a job were it not for the ATS profit. This would be the end of their
“retirement,” i.e., quitting their day job and would send an accurate message of massive
doubt reverberating throughout the downline organization. Either rare or non-existent
mention is made of the level of tool profits. This should be considered RICO fraud or at a
minimum, business fraud, for gross misrepresentation of the business model. Therefore, not
only should the level of overhead costs be known such that a breakeven point could be known
(in Amway, this is typically at the Platinum level, which not coincidentally is the same level
these scam artists start to get paid via the ATS and the equivalent of the Platinum level today
was known as Direct when the Wisconsin AG found the average Direct was operating at a
negative $900/year, almost breaking even, and the ATS is much more developed and
profitable today: https://stoptheamwaytoolscam.wordpress.com/what-is-the-basis-of-the-
real-amway-tool-scam-size/), as former FTC Commissioner mentioned over two years ago
with no public evidence that the FTC is serious about this issue), but the amount of profit
made from these losses, e.g., Amway’s tool scam, should be made known as averages/typical
levels as well. Note that Amway has an “Accreditation +” program, as in getting an A+ in
school (sorry to make you throw up in your mouth a bit), requires that the tool scam owners
 contractually treat the underling scam artists the same for a given pin level rather than play
favorites as they have done in the past.

6. Possible Recommended Changes: What modifications, if any, should the Commission

make to the Rule to increase its benefits or reduce its costs? See my “earnings claims” input
from May 2022. I don’t believe a Rule change is necessary to enforce the obvious. How would
these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers? Consumers would
have adequate information to make an informed decision and many less would be scammed.
How would these modifications affect the

costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses, and in particular small businesses? The costs are
negligible for the benefit of operating an honest business that is not unfair and deceptive and
therefore illegal under Section 5.

7. Unnecessary Provisions: Provide any evidence, including empirical analyses, concerning whether any
of the Rule’s provisions are no longer necessary. None. Explain why these provisions are unnecessary.
Not applicable.

8. Additional Unfair or Deceptive Practices: What potentially unfair or deceptive practices, related to
business opportunities and not covered by the current Rule, are occurring in the marketplace? See
above. Are any such practices prevalent in the market? Yes, universal when it comes to lack of retail
sales and much too common in regards to tool scams. If so, please describe such practices, including
their impact on consumers. See above and May 2022 “earnings claims” submittal. Provide any
evidence, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer reports, that demonstrates
the extent of such practices. The FTC has all the evidence they need from the links on my Facebook
page: www.Facebook.com/ScottTexJohnson and I told an FTC lawyer several years there is more than
enough information on the only website I had at the time,
www.StopTheAmwayToolScam.wordpress.com, but was told that the FTC’s “process” required a
minimum number of complaints prior to starting an investigation, and the FTC lawyer declined to
disclose the minimum number of complaints. Can you imagine telling the police of a kidnapping and
having plenty of evidence a kidnapping had occurred and them telling you they need more people to
report the kidnapping before they do anything? Provide any evidence that demonstrates whether such
practices cause consumer injury, and quantify or estimate that injury if possible. See above and May
2022 submittal. With reference to such practices, should the Rule be modified? The Rule doesn’t have
to be modified, but if the FTC would like to take it’s time again while several million more people are
scammed, knock your socks off. If so, why and how? Not applicable. If not, why not? See above and
May 2022 submittal.

9. Rule Coverage: Should the Commission broaden the Rule to include business or money-making
opportunities not currently covered? The FTC should have done this nearly two decades ago when
most of the complaints were directed towards MLM scams and failed miserably, but the FTC was too
attached to their own ideas rather than experts such as myself, we can only hope this time around the
FTC will be serious about being open to other ideas. Provide any evidence that supports your position.
See the past two decades of MLM scam behaviors noted above and in my May 2022 submittal. What
potentially unfair or deceptive practices related to business or money-making opportunities not covered
by the Rule are occurring in the marketplace? The FTC should focus on and address the prominent and
well-documented root causes prior to expanding into other areas. The FTC could correct any and all
such other issues and the result will be negligible change to the overall situation. Are any such
practices prevalent in the market? Not applicable. If so, please describe such practices, including their
impact on consumers. Not applicable.

Provide any evidence, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer reports, that
demonstrates the extent of such practices. Not applicable. Provide any evidence that demonstrates
whether such practices cause consumer injury, and quantify or estimate that injury if possible. Not
applicable.

10. Technological or Economic Changes: What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to
account for current or impending changes in technology or economic conditions? None. Again, the FTC
needs to address the root cause issue of having a legitimate (retail sales) and known (tool scams)
business model. Check your staff for ADD/ADHD (Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder). How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for
consumers and businesses, and in particular small businesses? Not applicable.

11. Conflicts with Other Requirements: Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or
local laws or regulations? Yes. If so, how? Numerous states have legalized illegal pyramids by not
requiring retail sales and instead allowing distributor-only purchases. Provide any evidence that
supports your position. The FTC should look at the state laws and contact the AGs for more details, I’m
not going to spoon-feed the information that you can easily obtain through normal channels. With
reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? I’m not a lawyer, but my
understanding is that the FTC Federal law supersedes state laws, so there is no need to be concerned
about state laws from the FTC’s perspective. However, it would help for the FTC to educate the state
AGs that simple operational features that lack of retail sales and tool scams are both obviously illegal,
regardless of the state law details. The state AGs may be limited as to what they can prosecute under
state law but this should not prevent them from working with the FTC to notify the FTC about the
above issues when they are seen in their state. If so, why and how? Not applicable. If not, why not?
See above and stay focused on Federal law, not state law. It would take years, if not decades, to get
the attention of state legislators to change their laws again, they were probably paid off by the DSA
and various MLM scams to get the current laws in place changed, so it would be much more
productive to proceed as described above. Besides, state enforcement is confined to the particular
state, so any victories are very limited in scope. Are there any Rule changes necessary to help state law
enforcement agencies combat unfair or deceptive practices in the business opportunity market? No,
educate the state AGs and have them report the above issues to the FTC and work together to shut
down MLM scams based on lack of retail sales and tool scams.
12. Other State or Local Laws or Regulations: Are there state or local laws or regulations that lessen
competition or impede consumer protection in the business opportunity market? Yes, see above.
Provide any evidence that supports your position. See above. Should the Commission, through its
advocacy work, encourage changes to these state or local laws or regulations? Yes, but don’t put much
energy into it, stay focused on Federal law enforcement. If so, what changes? See above.

B. Specific Questions Related to the Business Opportunity Rule

13. Should the Rule be expanded to more broadly include coaching or mentoring
programs,9 work-from-home opportunities,10 e-commerce opportunities,11 other investment
opportunities,12 or other types of business or money-making opportunities not currently
covered by the Business Opportunity Rule?13 Yes. Why or why not? There is a veritable plethora
of generic MLM “coaches,” many of whom are failed MLMers who recognized the real money
is in the tool scam, not the MLM products and services. They rarely, if ever, mention retail
sales. It’s all, or mostly all, about recruit-recruit-recruit. They should be required to spend at
least as much time promoting retail sales as they do recruiting, as the FTC has most recently
settled with a couple of MLM scams (Vemma and Herbalife) where the FTC has insisted on at
least half or more of the profit (which should include the signup/renewal fees, tool scams, and
internal distributor consumption) should come from outside customers in order to obtain full
bonus payments. Not that any of them know how to do retail sales as they probably didn’t do
it when they were MLMers.

a. What evidence supports such a modification? Look up clowns like Eric Worre, Ray
Higdon, Tim Sales, and many others: Top 22 MLM Trainers of All Time | Online MLM
Community None of them are willing to interact with yours truly in any manner, let alone
debate/discuss/argue. The only positive thing about the outside coaches is that the MLMers
know they make their money from coaching instead of the Amway LCKs (Lying Cowardly
“Kingpins”) who pretend to have obtained their lifestyle from Amway instead of the ATS.

b. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses and, in
particular, small businesses? Zero, but MLMs should warn their distributors about
these clown coaches.

c. How would this modification benefit consumers? It would keep the MLM distributors
from being ripped off by the clown coaches.

14. If the Rule is modified, should the Rule’s disclosure requirements be applied to any
of the types of money-making opportunities or business opportunities described in
question 13, above? Yes. Why or why not? There is just as much abuse, if not more,
from the outside “coaches” than the ones inside the MLMs.
 a. What evidence supports such a modification? The FTC has the same internet that we
do, go and look.

______________________________________________
9
See, e.g., FTC v. OTA Franchise Corp., No. 8:20-cv-287 (C.D. Cal. filed 2020); FTC v. Ragingbull.com, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-3538 (D.
Md. filed 2020); FTC v. Zurixx LLC, No. 2:19-cv-713 (D. Utah filed 2019); FTC v. Nudge LLC, No. 2:19-cv-867 (D. Utah filed 2019);
FTC v. Mobe Ltd., No. 6:18-cv-862 (M.D. Fla. filed 2018); FTC v. Digit. Altitude, No. 2:18-cv-0729 (C.D. Cal. filed 2018).

10
See, e.g., FTC v. Moda Latina BZ Inc., No. 2:20-cv-10832 (C.D. Cal. filed 2020); FTC v. 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle LLC, No. 8:19-cv-
1165 (C.D. Cal. filed 2019).

11
See, e.g., FTC v. Nat’l Web Design, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-846 (D. Utah filed 2020); FTC v. Advert. Strategies, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-3353
(D. Ariz. filed 2016).

12
See, e.g., FTC v. Warrior Trading, No. 3:22-cv-30048 (D. Mass. filed 2022); SEC v. Senderov, No. 19- cv-5242 (E.D. Wa. filed
2019); SEC v. Peterson, No. 19-cv-8334 (C.D. Cal. filed 2019); In re Spectrum Concepts LLC, SEC No. 3-16358 (SEC filed 2015); In
re Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, SEC No. 3-1267 (SEC filed 2014); SEC v. Butts, No. 13-23115 (S.D. Fla. filed 2013); SEC v. Shavers, No.
4:13-cv-416 (E.D. Tex. filed 2013).

13
See, e.g., FTC v. Position Gurus, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-710 (filed W.D. Wash. 2020) (marketing and other business-related services);
FTC v. Montano, No. 6:17-cv-2203 (filed M.D. Fla. 2017) (“automatic money systems” and “secret codes”); FTC v. World Patent
Mktg., No. 17-cv-20848 (filed S.D. Fla. 2017) (invention promotion); FTC v. Blue Saguaro Marketing, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-3406 (D.
Ariz. filed 2016) (grant scheme).

b. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses and, in
particular, small businesses? Zero.

c. How would this modification benefit consumers? It would put an end to these clown
“coaches” in the same way making the tool scam profits known would severely limit profits
for the insiders.

15. Do any practices of business opportunities or money-making opportunities , either currently

covered or identified in question 13 above, disproportionately target or affect certain
communities or groups, including but not limited to people living in lower-income
communities, communities of color, or other historically underserved communities? Who
cares? The law should be applied equally to all groups. However, it is common when
recruiting a minority to then recruit others in the same minority group. If so, why and how?
It’s easy money, the minority groups trust those of their group and many of them are illegal
aliens who won’t go to the authorities even more than people in the country legally, which is
negligible in itself. Provide all evidence that supports your answer. I was told about this from
a former Amway Platinum from Minnesota, where there is a large concentration of Somalis,
to try to recruit just one of them, and the rest will be easy to recruit as well. Keep in mind
one of the primary principles in MLM is that of duplication, so this is a very common
practice. The investigation by Bill Ackman regarding Herbalife uncovered a similar practice.
There are many other examples on the internet. Use it.
16. Should any of the Rule’s provisions be amended to avoid disproportionately affecting certain
groups, including but not limited to people living in lower-income communities, communities
of color, or other historically underserved communities? No. If so, why and how? Not
applicable. If not, why not? Ever hear of the concept of equal protection under the law?
Again, focus on the scammers and stop being woke, politically correct, and otherwise
distracted from your job to shut down MLM scams. I agree that those of lesser economic
means are potentially harmed more proportionally than those who have more resources,
but as described above the prey of those with more resources are those with lesser
economic means. The snake should be cut off at the head.

17. Should any of the Rule’s definitions be modified in any way? Yes. If so, how? Provide any
evidence that supports your position. See and use the definitions provided in my May 2022
“earnings claims” submittal. One of many glaring misuses of language is the annual DSA
announcement about the revenue of all MLMs the previous year. They use the term “retail
sales” describe total revenue, most of which is the distributors’ internal consumption,
leading prospective distributors to believe there are lots of retail sales only to find out it is
nearly impossible to sell the overpriced MLM products to the general public:
https://www.dsa.org/events/news/individual-press-release/US-Direct-Selling-Expected-to-
Grow-in-2021-According-to-New-DSA-Forecast#:~:text=DSA%20expects%20record-
high%20direct%20retail%20sales,between%20%2441.7%20billion%20and%20%2442.9%20bil
lion

18. Should Rule Section 437.2, which requires sellers of a business opportunity to furnish
prospective purchasers with a disclosure document at least seven calendar days before the
earlier of the time that the prospective purchaser (a) signs any contract in connection with the
business opportunity sale or (b) makes a payment or provides other consideration to the
seller, directly or indirectly through a third party,

10

be modified in any way? Yes. If so, how? Make it applicable to MLMs, as it should have been
after the most recent Business Opportunity Rule review over a decade ago. What are the
benefits to consumers and costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from the
current Section or your proposed modification? MLMs use extreme emotional tactics to
attract new recruits and providing meaningful information, such as the income disclosure
statements described in my May 2022 “earnings claims” submittal, will provide factual
information and an opportunity for the prospect to think through what they are considering
joining. MLMs also neglect to mention and/or downplay the significant role of retail sales
play in a legitimate MLM and this aspect should be made very obvious to the prospect,
including the level of retail sales required to be paid a bonus and the product pricing. Provide
all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to
consumers and the costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses. The benefit to
consumers is difficult to measure but it is probably significant. The FTC probably has plenty
 of information to confirm this regarding the Vemma, Herbalife, and AdvoCare cases and it is
unfortunate the case were settled out of court and did not go to trial in order for the
supporting information to be available publicly. The direct cost to MLMs is minimal, the
indirect costs to MLM scams is significant because it will be much more difficult to scam
recruits.

19. Should Rule Section 437.3, which outlines the information that must be included in the
disclosure document and requires sellers to update their disclosures periodically, be modified
in any way? Yes. If so, how? Make it applicable to MLMs and include the information
described in my May 2022 submittal. What are the benefits to consumers and costs to
businesses, and in particular small businesses, from the current Section or your proposed
modification? Another way to look at all of these questions regarding “benefits to consumers
and costs to businesses” is “decreased costs to consumers getting scammed and
reputational benefits to businesses operating legitimately.” Think about those words.
Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the
benefits to consumers and the costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses. As
above, it is difficult to measure something that hasn’t occurred. Use common sense by
implementing the same rules imposed on Vemma, Herbalife, and AdvoCare and the FTC will
be able to quantify the costs and benefits for consumers and MLMs.

20. Should Rule Section 437.4, which governs earnings claims by sellers of business
opportunities, be modified in any way? Yes. If so, how? See my May 2022 submittal. What are
the benefits to consumers and costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from the
current Section or your proposed modification? As stated above, it is difficult to measure
something that hasn’t occurred, but doing the right thing shouldn’t be graded by costs and
benefits. Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that
quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses, and in particular small
businesses. Again, it’s difficult to measure something that hasn’t occurred but common
sense indicates the benefits and costs for consumers would be significant and costs for
MLMs is minimal.

21. Should Rule Section 437.5, which speaks to sales conducted in languages other than English,
be modified in any way? Yes. If so, how? The best thing to do is require the consumer to
understand English, this would address the problem of minorities being targeted and
minimize illegal aliens being recruited into MLM scams.

11

What are the benefits to consumers and costs to businesses, and in particular small
businesses, from the current Section or your proposed modification? See above answers to
previous questions of this type. Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any
evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers and the costs to businesses, and in
particular small businesses. See above answers to previous questions of this type.
 22. Should Rule Section 437.6, which prohibits sellers from engaging in a number of deceptive
practices that are common in the sale of fraudulent business opportunities, be modified in any
way? No, stay focused on the root cause retail sales and tool scams basics instead of getting
distracted by other issues and making the analysis so complex that it results in paralysis by
analysis. If so, how? Not applicable. What are the benefits to consumers and costs to
businesses, and in particular small businesses, from the current Section or your proposed
modification or your proposed modification? Provide all evidence that supports your answer,
including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers and the costs to businesses,
and in particular small businesses. Not applicable.

23. Should Rule Section 437.7, which contains the Rule’s record retention requirements, be
modified in any way? No, see answers to previous question. If so, how? Not applicable. What
are the benefits to consumers and costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from
the current Section or your proposed modification? Provide all evidence that supports your
answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers and the costs to
businesses, and in particular small businesses. Not applicable.

24. Should Rule Section 437.8, the franchise exemption, be modified in any way? No, franchises
should be maintained in a separate category/section. If so, how? What are the benefits to
consumers and costs to

12

businesses, and in particular small businesses from the current Section or your proposed
modification? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that
quantifies the benefits to consumers and the costs to businesses, and in particular small
businesses. Not applicable.

25. Should Rule Section 437.9, which discusses how the Rule interacts with state law and the
effect of the Rule on existing Commission orders, be modified in any way? No, see responses
to question 22 above. If so, how? Not applicable. What are the benefits to consumers and
costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from the current Section or your
proposed modification? Not applicable. Provide all evidence that supports your answer,
including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers and the costs to businesses,
and in particular small businesses. Not applicable.

IV. Instructions for Submitting Comments

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we
must receive it on or before January 24, 2023. Write “Business Opportunity Rule ANPR, 16 CFR Part 437,
Project No. R511993,” on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be
placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on
https://www.regulations.gov.
 Because of the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency’s
heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We
strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through https://www.regulations.gov. To
ensure the Commission considers your online

13

comment, please follow the instructions on the web-based form.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Business Opportunity Rule ANPR, 16 CFR Part 437,
Project No. R511993” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following
address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite CC-
5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the
Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website,

https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not
include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any
sensitive personal information such as your or anyone’s Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s
license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number,
financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making
sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or
other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any
“[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as
provided in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule § 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—
including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories,
formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in
paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with

14

FTC Rule § 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the
comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions
of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule § 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public
interest. Once your comment has been posted publicly at https://www.regulations.gov—as legally
required by FTC Rule § 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment, unless you submit a
confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule § 4.9(c), and the
General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC website to read this request for comment and the news release describing it. The
FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to
consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and
responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 24, 2023. For information on the
Commission’s privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
https://www.ftc.gov/siteinformation/privacy-policy.

By direction of the Commission.

April J. Tabor,

Secretary

15