oices and ways to go into business. Who does this really help; a few more jobs at the Federal Trade Commission? Room for a few more franchising lawyers to bill at a little higher rate? If we reduce the rules, some franchise attorneys will have to move to California to sue for workmen’s compensation, to the northern Midwest to sue for mold or to Cape Cod and specialize in the new emergence of the ever-changing sameAfter more than a decade since the last attempt to update the 1970’s Franchise Rule The Federal Trade Commission is at it again. May I ask why we are looking at reviewing these rules for franchising, where no problems exist? Why we are looking to tighten up ambiguities, which over time have occurred in this sector, when we should be dismantling the over regulations choking the industry? Why we are trying make rules upon rules, where no rules are needed since no problem really exits? Why can’t we use the red magic marker approach and start drawing lines thru massive amount meaningless dribble required in these disclosure documents?

Let me explain this philosophical thought for a moment. Recently Mr. Allen Greenspan before the Senate was asked about rules in the securities industries, stock exchanges, broker dealers to curb potential future fraud. He then correctly indicated that once you make a rule, the temptation to make additional rules to close gaps is just too great. Now then are we not sure we are headed down a slippery slope with regards to the litigious nature of the franchising industry, in that the trend in the industry currently is for franchisors to exit the market place.

One Industry Insider, franchising consultant in Houston is recommending this to his major clientele –Stop Franchising. Adding more laws and disclosures will only cause fewer competitors in the market, fewer choices, higher prices all in the name of protecting the now damaged consumer? This means we may deny many their American Dream of owning their own business and those citizens who have their hearts set on it will be severely limited in the number of choices and ways to go into business. Who does this really help; a few more jobs at the Federal Trade Commission? Room for a few more franchising lawyers to bill at a little higher rate? If we reduce the rules, some franchise attorneys will have to move to California to sue for workmen’s compensation, to the northern Midwest to sue for mold or to Cape Cod and specialize in the new emergence of the ever-changing same

upon rules, where no rules are needed since no problem really exits? Why can’t we use the red magic marker approach and start drawing lines thru massive amount meaningless dribble required in these disclosure documents?

Let me explain this philosophical thought for a moment. Recently Mr. Allen Greenspan before the Senate was asked about rules in the securities industries, stock exchanges, broker dealers to curb potential future fraud. He then correctly indicated that once you make a rule, the temptation to make additional rules to close gaps is just too great. Now then are we not sure we are headed down a slippery slope with regards to the litigious nature of the franchising industry, in that the trend in the industry currently is for franchisors to exit the market place.

One Industry Insider, franchising consultant in Houston is recommending this to his major clientele –Stop Franchising. Adding more laws and disclosures will only cause fewer competitors in the market, fewer choices, higher prices all in the name of protecting the now damaged consumer? This means we may deny many their American Dream of owning their own business and those citizens who have their hearts set on it will be severely limited in the number of choices and ways to go into business. Who does this really help; a few more jobs at the Federal Trade Commission? Room for a few more franchising lawyers to bill at a little higher rate? If we reduce the rules, some franchise attorneys will have to move to California to sue for workmen’s compensation, to the northern Midwest to sue for mold or to Cape Cod and specialize in the new emergence of the ever-changing same

urb potential future fraud. He then correctly indicated that once you make a rule, the temptation to make additional rules to close gaps is just too great. Now then are we not sure we are headed down a slippery slope with regards to the litigious nature of the franchising industry, in that the trend in the industry currently is for franchisors to exit the market place.

One Industry Insider, franchising consultant in Houston is recommending this to his major clientele –Stop Franchising. Adding more laws and disclosures will only cause fewer competitors in the market, fewer choices, higher prices all in the name of protecting the now damaged consumer? This means we may deny many their American Dream of owning their own business and those citizens who have their hearts set on it will be severely limited in the number of choices and ways to go into business. Who does this really help; a few more jobs at the Federal Trade Commission? Room for a few more franchising lawyers to bill at a little higher rate? If we reduce the rules, some franchise attorneys will have to move to California to sue for workmen’s compensation, to the northern Midwest to sue for mold or to Cape Cod and specialize in the new emergence of the ever-changing same

tant in Houston is recommending this to his major clientele –Stop Franchising. Adding more laws and disclosures will only cause fewer competitors in the market, fewer choices, higher prices all in the name of protecting the now damaged consumer? This means we may deny many their American Dream of owning their own business and those citizens who have their hearts set on it will be severely limited in the number of choices and ways to go into business. Who does this really help; a few more jobs at the Federal Trade Commission? Room for a few more franchising lawyers to bill at a little higher rate? If we reduce the rules, some franchise attorneys will have to move to California to sue for workmen’s compensation, to the northern Midwest to sue for mold or to Cape Cod and specialize in the new emergence of the ever-changing sameoices and ways to go into business. Who does this really help; a few more jobs at the Federal Trade Commission? Room for a few more franchising lawyers to bill at a little higher rate? If we reduce the rules, some franchise attorneys will have to move to California to sue for workmen’s compensation, to the northern Midwest to sue for mold or to Cape Cod and specialize in the new emergence of the ever-changing same sex family law there? The attorneys have made millions of dollars in the franchising realm since the 1970’s and in the last decade they have doubled their fees between 1995 and 2005, enough is enough? Think about it.