"A participant in this multilevel marketing plan has a right to cancel at any time, regardless of reason. Cancellation must be submitted in writing to the company at its principal business address."; and
(2) If a bond is required under Code Section 10-1-412, the following statement, with all blanks properly filled:
"As required by Georgia law, the company has secured a bond or established a trust account for your protection. This bond or trust account can be identified as # ______________ in the name of ______________, provided by the following bonding company or trust company: ______________, which is located at the following address: ________________________ in the City of ______________, State of ______________.";
A participant in a multilevel marketing plan has a right to cancel at any time, regardless of reason.If a participant will be under an obligation to make any payment after the agreement has been entered into, a statement in ten-point boldface type as follows must appear in the contract or an addendum thereto:
A description of any cancellation rights.
(Ga. L. 1980, p. 1233, § 6; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1868, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2370, § 5.)
Code Commission notes.- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1992, "#" was deleted following "in the name of" in paragraph (c)(2) and "Goods" was substituted for "Good" in the third sentence of paragraph (d)(1).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1994, "City" and "State" were substituted for "city" and "state" near the end of paragraph (c)(2).
Law reviews.- For annual survey on business corporations, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 61 (2012). For note, "The Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act," see 1 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 219 (1985).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Cancellation of multi-level distribution agreement.
- Trial court erred in dismissing a physician's complaint against a health and nutrition multi-level distribution company's officers alleging violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., and the Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act (SBOA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because in response to requests for admissions, the company admitted that the company was a "multilevel distribution company" as defined in the SBOA, that the provisions of the SBOA, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-415(c)(4), applied to any agreement made in Georgia, that the officers were founding members of the company and were officers when the physician became a marketer; the officers also admitted that the physician's cancellation rights under Georgia law were generally known to the officers. Walker v. Amerireach.com, 306 Ga. App. 658, 703 S.E.2d 100 (2010), aff'd in part, 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).
Summary judgment improper.
- Trial court erred in holding that a physician failed to allege that the physician sustained damages due to the failure of a health and nutrition multi-level distribution company to inform the physician of the physician's buy-back rights under the Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act (SBOA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., because the physician presented sufficient evidence of reliance and damages to withstand a motion for summary judgment since the physician alleged that the physician relied on the company to disclose the physician's rights under Georgia law and that the company refused to comply with the product repurchase requirements of the SBOA, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-415(d)(1); the company's contract clause providing that state laws on termination applied if the laws were inconsistent with the contract was insufficient to constitute compliance with O.C.G.A. § 10-1-415(c)(3), and whether the company gave proper "notice" to the physician that the company amended the company's online policies and procedures to comply with Georgia law and whether the physician should have asserted the physician's legal rights earlier were genuine issues of material fact for a jury to decide. Walker v. Amerireach.com, 306 Ga. App. 658, 703 S.E.2d 100 (2010), aff'd in part, 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).
Contractual defense of forum selection clause did not apply.
- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a health and nutrition multi-level distribution company in a physician's action alleging violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., and the Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act (SBOA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., because the physician's claims were not res judicata based on a default judgment entered in favor of the company in a Texas court, and since the four corners of the physician's complaint reveal that the physician's claims were not based on breach of contract but were based on violation of the SBOA, the contractual defense of a forum selection clause did not apply; FBPA claims are not contract claims. Walker v. Amerireach.com, 306 Ga. App. 658, 703 S.E.2d 100 (2010), aff'd in part, 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).
Jurisdiction over corporate officers in action alleging violations of the Georgia Sale of Opportunities Act.
- Court of appeals did not err in ruling that a trial court had personal jurisdiction over the officers of a limited liability company (LLC) in a physician's action alleging that the officers violated the Sale of Business Opportunities Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-415(d)(1), because the allegations of a physician's complaint were sufficient to withstand the attack on the trial court's jurisdiction over the officers on the ground that the officers acted in the officers' corporate capacities; the "fiduciary shield" doctrine did not apply, and the allegations in the complaint supported a finding that the officers were "primary participants" in the LLC's transaction of business within the state, that the cause of action arose from or was connected with such act or transaction, and that the "minimum contacts" test was therefore met. Amerireach.com, LLC v. Walker, 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).