The FTC rule

"Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!" We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity, Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other new Global Prosperity scams.

Moderator: wserra


The FTC rule

Post by Shakespearegirl » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:19 pm

apparently they've decided NOT to include MLMs in their business opportunity rule. Makes me sick.

User avatar
Quatloosian Baron of the Unknown Statute
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:01 pm

Re: The FTC rule

Post by buck09 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:35 pm

Shakespearegirl wrote:apparently they've decided NOT to include MLMs in their business opportunity rule. Makes me sick.

Very unfortunate. That's a long ruling - assuming you've read through it, what's the FTC's rationale for not including them in the disclosure requirements?
I’ll help them get more power at the Fed. - Ron Paul

User avatar
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6445
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: The FTC rule

Post by wserra » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:11 pm

buck09 wrote:what's the FTC's rationale for not including them in the disclosure requirements?

I'm sure you will be shocked to find out that such a "rationale" doesn't really exist. Here is what passes for a "rationale"
The second problem with the breadth of the IPBOR’s coverage relates to the Commission’s attempt to reach pyramid schemes with the Business Opportunity Rule. An overwhelming majority of commenters argued that the IPBOR failed to differentiate 48 between unlawful pyramid schemes and legitimate companies using an MLM business model. These commenters argued that the requirements of the IPBOR simultaneously would have been insufficient to curb pyramid fraud yet devastating to MLM companies 49 and individual MLM distributors. Criticism was not confined to industry comments. Two consumer groups also filed comments asserting that, although MLMs should be covered, the disclosures the Commission proposed in the IPBOR would be inadequate to remedy deceptive earnings claims. On balance, based upon this record and its law 50 enforcement experience, the Commission does not believe it is practicable or sufficiently beneficial to consumers to attempt to apply the proposals advanced in this rulemaking against multi-level marketing companies, particularly when considering the burdens upon industry. The Commission, therefore, has determined that at this point, it will continue to use Section 5 to challenge unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the MLM industry.

48 Of the more than 17,000 comments that the Commission received, it is fair to estimate that well over 95% came from members of the MLM industry expressing opposition to the IPBOR. As noted above, many of these were form letters.

And we all know how diligent and effective the FTC has been against blatant pyramid ripoffs using Section 5. What do they average - one unknown per year?

Allow me to translate from bureauspeak: We're the Bush administration. The foxes guard the henhouses. Industry doesn't like it - well, that's good enough for us.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume