Which Legal Risks Need Attention Now in Franchise Law?

The FDD must include 23 specific items covering the franchisor's business history, litigation and bankruptcy records, initial fees, ongoing royalties, financial performance representations, obligations of both parties, and the names and contact information of other franchisees. In practice, these cases are rarely as clean as the statute suggests; courts often struggle with whether oral statements, emails, or side letters constitute binding promises that should have been in the FDD. A franchisee in Queens who received verbal assurances about territory exclusivity, then discovered the franchisor had already licensed a competitor nearby, may have grounds to claim the franchisor concealed material facts. State franchise laws in New York, California, and other registration states impose even stricter requirements, and violations can trigger rescission rights, damages, and attorney fees.

Materiality is the threshold question: did the franchisor omit or misrepresent information that a reasonable franchisee would consider important in deciding whether to invest? Courts apply an objective test, focusing on whether the information would have altered the franchisee's decision. Damages in disclosure cases can include the full investment amount, lost profits, or statutory penalties depending on the jurisdiction and whether the violation was intentional. From a practitioner's perspective, early document review and comparison of the FDD against all promotional materials and side agreements is critical because courts will scrutinize whether the franchisor's conduct was reckless or deliberate.

Good cause typically includes material breach (failure to pay royalties, violation of operational standards, or breach of confidentiality), insolvency, or abandonment of the business. Courts examine whether the franchisor acted in good faith and whether the alleged breach was material enough to justify termination. Some states (notably New York and California) impose an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, meaning a franchisor cannot terminate arbitrarily or for pretextual reasons even if the agreement grants broad termination rights. A franchisor cannot terminate a franchisee simply because the franchisor wants to operate that territory itself or because the franchisee refused to comply with an unreasonable demand that was not in the original agreement.

Litigation over wrongful termination often focuses on whether the franchisor complied with notice and cure periods and whether the stated reason for termination is pretextual. In New York State courts, franchisees have successfully challenged terminations where the franchisor failed to provide written notice or a reasonable opportunity to remedy the breach. Damages can include lost profits for the remainder of the franchise term, goodwill value, and sometimes attorney fees if the state statute allows it. The burden often falls on the franchisor to prove good cause was legitimate and not a cover for anti-competitive behavior.

Fourteen states (including New York, California, Illinois, and Michigan) require franchisors to register their franchise offering before offering franchises to residents. Registration states typically require the franchisor to file the FDD, pay a filing fee, and renew registration annually. New York franchisors must file with the Department of State and update the registration if material changes occur. Failure to register in a registration state can result in civil penalties, rescission rights for franchisees, and potential criminal liability in egregious cases. Non-registration states rely on the FTC rule and state common law (good faith, fraud, and unconscionability doctrines) to protect franchisees.

When a franchisor becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, franchisees face uncertainty about whether the system will survive and whether they can continue operating under the brand. Franchise insolvency situations often raise questions about whether franchisees have priority claims for unpaid rebates or indemnification, whether they can operate independently after the franchisor's assets are liquidated, and whether creditors can seize franchise royalty streams. Bankruptcy courts have held that franchise agreements are generally executory contracts, meaning a trustee can assume or reject them. Franchisees should monitor franchisor financial health and ensure their agreements include survival provisions (for example, the right to continue using the brand name and operating system after franchisor insolvency).