Blogs
Business
Virginia Reshapes Franchising with Ban on Post-Term Non-Competes
Franchisors with Virginia locations should prepare to revise their franchise agreements and Virginia-specific disclosure materials. Beginning July 1, 2026, Virginia law will prohibit most post-termination non-compete provisions in covered franchise agreements and will require those agreements to be governed by Virginia law. For franchisees, the amendments create greater post-exit flexibility and reduce the ability of franchisors to rely on out-of-state governing-law clauses to avoid Virginia’s statutory protections. The practical message is straightforward: franchisors should review Virginia-facing templates, renewal and amendment practices, confidentiality and trade secret protections, and enforcement strategies well before making any new offer, sale, renewal, extension, or amendment for a Virginia location on or after the effective date. Implications for Virginia Franchisors and Franchisees These changes matter immediately for drafting and compliance. A franchisor that continues to use a standard national form for Virginia deals without modification risks including provisions that will no longer be permitted once the new law takes effect. Agreements entered into before July 1, 2026, are not automatically displaced, but renewals, extensions, and amendments on or after that date may trigger the new requirements, making it especially important to review not only new-deal documents but also legacy agreements that may soon come back into circulation. Public commentary following the legislation has also noted guidance issued on April 14, 2026, by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising regarding updates to franchise disclosure materials and Virginia addenda, underscoring that compliance will require attention not just to contracts but also to disclosure practice. How Virginia’s New Franchise Non-Compete Law Affects Franchise Agreements The amendments to Virginia’s Retail Franchising Act, enacted through House Bill 69 and the companion Senate Bill 240, apply to franchises that require or contemplate a place of business in Virginia, a concept broad enough to reach more than traditional brick-and-mortar outlets and potentially many service concepts operating in the Commonwealth. Effective July 1, 2026, the law makes it unlawful to offer or enter into a covered franchise agreement that restricts the franchisee’s right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services at retail after termination or expiration of the franchise agreement. Just as significantly, covered franchise agreements must now be governed by Virginia law, preventing franchisors from selecting another state’s law in an effort to sidestep Virginia’s franchisee protections. Virginia Franchise Non-Compete Exceptions The statute includes a narrow exception when a franchisee voluntarily sells the franchise at a mutually agreed price, whether to a third party or back to the franchisor. In that setting, the franchisor or the buyer may require the selling franchisee to agree to a non-compete that is binding for up to two years after the sale. Outside that sale context, however, post-term non-compete restrictions in covered Virginia franchise agreements are no longer permitted. The law is also expressly prospective: contracts entered into, extended, or modified on or before June 30, 2026, remain unaffected, but activity on or after July 1, 2026, may bring an agreement within the amended statute’s reach. The Business Impact of Virginia’s Franchise Non-Compete Ban and Compliance Steps for Franchisors Taken together, the amendments materially rebalance franchise relationships for Virginia locations in favor of franchisees by eliminating most post-termination non-competes and requiring Virginia law to govern covered agreements. That governing-law requirement may prove especially consequential, because it reduces the usefulness of contract provisions that previously might have directed disputes toward more franchisor-friendly legal standards. It also means that franchisors evaluating renewals, transfers, terminations, and system enforcement in Virginia will need to assess those decisions against Virginia’s franchise-specific statutory framework. For franchisors, the likely response will be to strengthen other forms of system protection that do not depend on a post-term non-compete. Confidentiality provisions, trade secret controls, non-solicitation language where appropriate, access limits on customer data, tighter operational safeguards, and clearer brand-transition requirements may all take on greater importance. The statute does not prevent a franchisor from pursuing monetary remedies when a franchisee breaches contractual obligations during the term, so careful drafting around in-term defaults, de-branding obligations, liquidated damages, and post-termination transition steps may become more important than ever. The new law may also influence how franchisors think about renewal rights in Virginia. If a former franchisee cannot be restricted from competing after expiration in most circumstances, franchisors may revisit whether renewal should remain automatic or broadly available, and whether Virginia-specific renewal provisions should be adjusted to reflect the changed competitive landscape. For franchisees, by contrast, the law creates additional bargaining leverage and a more realistic ability to continue in business after the franchise relationship ends, provided they do so without violating enforceable contractual duties that survive termination. More broadly, Virginia’s action may be an early indication of where franchise regulation is heading in other jurisdictions. Franchisors operating nationally may therefore want to treat these amendments not as an isolated state-law issue, but as a signal to review their broader contract architecture and protective covenants across the system. For now, however, the immediate takeaway is clear: any franchisor with Virginia-facing agreements or pending registration materials should act promptly to align its documents, disclosures, and operational protections with the Commonwealth’s new rules before July 1, 2026.
May 18, 2026
Business
Maryland Franchise Reform Act Passes
The Maryland General Assembly has enacted, by overwhelming majorities, the Franchise Reform Act (Senate Bill 415 & House Bill 730), marking the first significant changes to the Maryland Franchise Registration & Disclosure Law (the “Maryland Franchise Law”) since its enactment in 1981. Governor Moore is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly, and it will become effective on October 1, 2026. The House sponsor and primary driver of the legislation, Delegate Marc Korman, introduced the bill resulting from numerous constituents who had raised concerns about the franchise registration process in Maryland, concerns shared by franchisors nationwide. However, while part of the law will encourage streamlining the Maryland franchise sales registration process, it also provides changes that will be helpful to Maryland franchisees and Maryland-based franchisors. Having focused my practice on franchise law in Maryland for more than 25 years, I was privileged to be asked by Delegate Korman to work closely with him and his staff on the drafting and revising of the legislation, which included conducting workgroup focus meetings with members of the Maryland State Bar Association (“MSBA”) to gather feedback, and testifying on behalf of the MSBA in favor of the legislation multiple times throughout 2025 and 2026. The Maryland Franchise Law protects people considering the purchase of a franchise from being misled or under-informed when deciding whether to buy. The law requires franchisors to prepare a prospectus (called a “Franchise Disclosure Document” or an “FDD”) detailing a wide variety of information and submit it to the Securities Commissioner, who is an officer with the Maryland Office of the Attorney General (the “OAG”), and obtain that agency’s approval to sell franchises in Maryland. That approval, called registration, must be renewed each year in which the franchisor continues to sell franchises to Maryland residents or for the operation of the franchised business in Maryland (collectively, “Maryland Franchises”). Until now, the law has solely addressed the franchise sales process, rather than the ongoing relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. The Maryland Franchise Reform Act does the following: For the Benefit of Franchisors Generally Following the bill’s initial introduction and passage by the House of Delegates during the 2025 session, the Securities Commissioner established a pilot program intended to expedite franchise registration renewals. The approved law requires the Securities Commissioner to continue the pilot program and to report to the legislature in 2031 on the program’s results, as well providing data on other aspects of the registration process, and an analysis of how Maryland’s exemptions from registration for experienced franchisors compares with those of other states that require registration before sale of a franchise. For the Benefit of Maryland Franchisors The law limits private parties who can sue a franchisor for violation of the Maryland Franchise Law solely to Maryland franchisees. This will eliminate the ability of out-of-state franchisees to use the statute as a weapon in disputes with franchisors that are or were headquartered in Maryland, which has been a deterrent to franchising from Maryland as compared to nearby states. For the Benefit of Franchisees Consistent with the Maryland Franchise Law’s purpose, parts of the law will benefit franchisees. Specifically: For the first time, the Maryland Franchise Law addresses the imbalance of power between franchisees and franchisors within the ongoing relationship, by prohibiting a franchisor from restricting or inhibiting Maryland franchisees from associating with other franchisees within their brand for the franchisees’ common benefit “for any lawful purpose” — which could include collectively raising grievances with the franchisor for the franchisees’ mutual benefit. Maryland franchisees will have the right to sue in Maryland courts for injunctive relief and damage suffered, if the franchisor violates this prohibition. This provision is similar to “free association” laws passed in several other states, including California and Illinois. The time during which a franchisee may bring a private claim for violation of the law’s registration or disclosure provisions has changed in a manner that benefits certain franchisees. Franchisees will now have until the earlier of four years from buying the franchise rights or two years after the date the franchise opened to the public. The limitations period was three years from the date the franchise rights were purchased, regardless of when the franchised business opened. The advantage will be for retail franchises that often take two years or more from buying the franchise to open due to challenges in securing an acceptable site and constructing the franchise, since those owners then will have time after opening to determine the viability of their investment and whether the franchisor violated the Maryland Franchise Law in selling the franchise. For franchises that open within a short time of purchasing the rights, the judgment of the MSBA and the legislature was that two years from opening is sufficient for a franchisee to make that determination and commence a lawsuit.
April 30, 2026
Business
The American Franchise Act Could Secure the Future of Franchising in the U.S.
A bill pending before the U.S. House of Representatives, if signed into law, would finally establish clarity on how and when employer responsibility is shared by franchisors and franchisees under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The “joint employer” issue, which has cast a cloud over franchising’s continued viability in the U.S. since the Obama Administration, can finally be resolved in the long-term if this 119th Congress passes the bill. The current President has publicly committed to signing it into law if it comes to his desk. The American Franchise Act, H.R. 5267, states, “a franchisor may be considered a joint employer of the employee of a franchisee only if the franchisor possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms or conditions of the employees of the franchisee.” It sets forth, in some detail, the essential terms and conditions of employment, the level of control that the franchisor must exert over the term or condition (such as wage rates), and examples of assistance or guidance provided by a franchisor concerning an employment term or condition that do not constitute control. The bill’s original 14 cosponsors were seven Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Kevin Hein of Oklahoma, a former McDonald’s franchisee, and seven Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Hillary Scholten of Michigan, who said the bill will help the franchise model, which she called an “economic powerhouse” for entrepreneurs. “This bill will bring the clarity small business owners need to continue creating jobs and building up our communities,” Scholten said in a statement. “The franchising model is unique. It requires a tailored approach that properly recognizes the relationship between franchisors and franchisees.” Representative Scholten noted the uncertainty with shifting regulations “is costly to our entrepreneurs,” and the AFA “provides a clear path forward so they can focus on running their businesses.” The uncertainty to which Rep. Scholten refers is that, under a broader standard for finding a franchisor to be the “joint employer” of the franchisee’s employees, many or most franchisors would be at risk of sharing liability with franchisees on matters such as labor and wage-and-hour law violations. They might also have a legal obligation to negotiate with unions. The most recent uncertainty on the issue occurred in 2023 and 2024, when the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) promulgated a regulation defining joint employment in a broad fashion nearly identical to the rule issued during the Obama Administration. The International Franchise Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other groups challenged the rule’s legal validity in court. A U.S. District Court judge struck down the rule in March 2024, and the NLRB did not appeal the ruling. In addition, both houses of the last (118th) Congress approved a bill to reverse the NLRB’s regulation, utilizing the Congressional Review Act, including the U.S. Senate which then had a Democratic majority. However, President Joe Biden vetoed the bill in May 2024. An important effect of the uncertainty caused by expansive joint employer definitions has been to discourage franchisors from providing their franchisees with valuable tools and guidance for recruiting and managing their workforce, thereby eroding the value of the franchise for the franchisees themselves. In addition, the possibility of future administrations enacting a broad joint employer definition has a chilling effect on the continued success of the franchise model as a growth vehicle. In the absence of legislation, which is more difficult to overturn than regulations, the reticence of a quality brand to franchise will deprive potential franchise buyers of opportunities to develop successful locations of famous brands in their communities. The American Franchise Act now has 48 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including 12 Democratic representatives. This 119th Congress is the best chance to enact this type of legislation. To learn how to support it by telling your positive franchising story, please go to Joint Employer - International Franchise Association.
December 3, 2025
Franchise Law
SBA Franchise Directory Reinstated: Key 2025 Updates for Franchisors and Franchisees
The U.S. Small Business Administration reinstated the Small Business Administration (SBA) Franchise Directory on June 1, 2025, reversing the 2023 decision to sunset the program. The Directory has long been the primary reference that SBA-certified lenders consult to determine if a franchisee of a brand is eligible for SBA-guaranteed financing. SBA guaranteed loans are intended to finance independently owned small businesses. For a franchisee to qualify as the owner of such a business, the franchisor must not unduly control the day-to-day operations, such that the person applying as a franchisee is really a passive investor. Under the updated framework, franchised brands will no longer need to sign the SBA Franchise Addendum (Form 2462), or an addendum specific to franchisees receiving SBA-guaranteed loans that the franchisor had negotiated with SBA. Instead, each brand must execute and submit to the SBA a new Certification that expressly affirms compliance with the eligibility conditions for Directory listing. See SBA Franchise Directory. By issuing the Certification, the franchisor will have agreed not to enforce any provision in its contracts with an SBA-financed franchisee that is inconsistent with the certification. Any brand that is not yet listed in the Directory may submit its current FDD and signed Certification at any time for review by the SBA. Brands already in the Directory may maintain their status by filing certifications along with their current FDDs on or before July 31, 2025. Until then, lenders may continue to close loans using the familiar SBA addendum, but SBA records will flag each brand as “Certification Pending.” On August 1, 2025, any brand that has not submitted a certification will be removed from the Directory, and its franchisees will become ineligible for SBA-backed financing until the brand is re-listed. There is no fee for a directory listing and certifications may be submitted to the SBA at no cost. One aspect of the certification that is particularly worth highlighting: “[The] Franchise Agreement does not prevent the Franchisee from having meaningful oversight over the operations of the business. Meaningful oversight includes the authority to: (i.) Approve the annual budget; (ii.) Have control over the bank accounts; AND (iii.) Have oversight over the employees operating the business (who must be employees of the Franchisee). A Franchise Agreement does not prevent a Franchisee from having meaningful oversight over the operations of its business by requiring the Franchisee to comply with quality, marketing, and operations standards that govern the Franchisee’s use of the Franchisor’s system of operations.” Therefore, companies that market as “franchises” which are primarily passive investment opportunities, are likely to face more scrutiny from SBA regulators concerned that the borrower actually operates the small business seeking funding. Such companies may need to consider making changes to their business model if SBA guaranteed loans are important to their growth strategy. For franchisees, if you are likely to seek an SBA guaranteed loan to finance your business, or you expect that a purchaser of your franchise might use such a loan to buy you out, then you should make sure that the franchisor has registered with the Directory. If it has not, you may want to ask, “Why not?”
June 18, 2025
Franchise Law
Maryland Franchise Reform Act Introduced
On January 31, 2025, Delegate Marc Korman of Montgomery County introduced Maryland House of Delegates Bill 992, entitled the Franchise Reform Act, which would make the first significant changes to the Maryland Franchise Registration & Disclosure Law (the “Maryland Franchise Law”) since its enactment in 1981. Delegate Korman told me that he introduced the bill because several of his constituents had raised concerns about the franchising process in Maryland. He told me that, in preparing the bill over the past year, he did a deep dive into this law, consulting with the franchise regulators in the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, with me and with others who are familiar with this law. The Maryland Franchise Law is designed to protect people considering the purchase of a franchise from being misled or under-informed when deciding whether to buy. The law requires franchisors to prepare a prospectus (called a “Franchise Disclosure Document” or an “FDD”) detailing a wide variety of information and submit it to the Securities Commissioner, who is an officer with the Maryland Office of the Attorney General (the “OAG”) and obtain that agency’s approval to sell franchises in Maryland. That approval, called registration, must be renewed each year in which the franchisor continues to sell franchises to Maryland residents or for operation of the franchised business in Maryland (collectively, “Maryland Franchises”). The current law mostly addresses the franchise sales process rather than the ongoing relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. The bill would do the following: For the Benefit of Franchisors Generally: The bill would establish a pilot program, to be run by the Securities Commissioner, that is intended to expedite franchise registration renewals. Maryland registration renewal delays have frustrated many franchisors from throughout the United States. For the Benefit of Maryland Franchisors: Based on the author’s communications with Delegate Korman since the bill’s introduction, he will submit an amendment to the bill that will limit the private parties who can sue a franchisor for violation of the Maryland Franchise Law solely to Maryland Franchisees. This will eliminate the ability of out-of-state franchisees to use the statute as a weapon in disputes with franchisors that are or were headquartered in Maryland – which was a deterrent to franchising from Maryland as compared to nearby states. This expected amendment is a key to making this a balanced and fair bill. For the Benefit of Franchisees: Given the Maryland Franchise Law’s purpose, parts of the bill will benefit franchisees. Specifically: For the first time, the Maryland Franchise Law will address the imbalance of power between franchisees and franchisors within the ongoing relationship, by prohibiting a franchisor from restricting or inhibiting Maryland Franchisees from associating with other franchisees within their brand for the franchisees’ common benefit “for any lawful purpose” – which could include collectively raising grievances with the franchisor for the franchisees’ mutual benefit. Maryland Franchisees will have a right to sue for injunctive relief and damages, in Maryland, if the franchisor violates this prohibition. This provision is similar to “free association” laws passed in several other states, including California and Illinois. The time period in which a franchisee may bring a private claim for violation of the law will be extended until the later of five years from buying the franchise rights or two years after the date of the initial commencement of operations of the franchise. This is a significant relaxation of the time restriction, which had been three years from the date the franchise rights were purchased (regardless of when the franchised business opened). This seems to be an overaggressive change for private rights of action, as we would prefer to see the time period be the later of three years from buying the franchise rights or three years after commencing operations. The Securities Commissioner will be directed to increase the dollar amount of the exemption from full registration review that exists for franchisors with significant “net equity” to account for inflation since that exemption was established in the 1990s. This will allow the Securities Commissioner to substantively review many more FDDs, which may increase compliance by medium-sized franchisors with the disclosure requirements. The time period for the Securities Commissioner to bring claims for violation of the Maryland Franchise Law also will be extended to five years from a violation, giving that office greater ability to protect franchisees who were misled into buying a franchise. (Of note, the amendments concerning private rights of action will not inhibit the Securities Commissioner’s enforcement ability, including the potential that it could sue a Maryland-based franchisor whose misrepresentations harm a substantial number of franchisees outside of Maryland.) The bill will be heard by the House of Delegates Economic Matters Committee in Annapolis on the afternoon of February 19, 2025, and the author has been invited to testify on the bill and plans to do so favorably, with the amendments discussed above. We plan to keep a close watch on the activity surrounding the bill and provide additional information.
February 14, 2025
Franchise Law
Virginia Bill That Would Ban Franchise Non-Competes Advances in State Senate
Virginia Senate Bill 798, introduced by former in-home senior care franchisee Sen. Chris Head, was passed unanimously by the Virginia Senate on January 17, 2025. The bill would amend Virginia's Retail Franchising Law to require franchise agreements for a Virginia location to be governed by the laws of Virginia. It would make it illegal to offer or enter into such a franchise agreement “that restricts the right of a franchisee to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services at retail after termination or expiration of the franchise agreement.” It will be heard in a Virginia House of Delegates Labor & Commerce Committee, likely sometime during February 2025. Why it Matters: Covenants not to compete are hallmarks of franchising. Some argue that they are necessary to protect a franchisor’s confidential and proprietary information from misuse by former franchisees to the detriment of both the franchisor and its remaining franchisees. Many franchisees think such provisions restrict their ability to hold a franchisor accountable, since the non-compete traps franchisees in the relationship with little recourse to advocate for their benefit. Very few states have outlawed post-termination or expiration covenants not to compete in franchise agreements. California is well-known for its law that makes non-competes unlawful in most contracts, including employment and franchise agreements, unless the covenant is given in the context of selling a business as a going concern. Illinois restricts the ability of a franchisor to enforce a non-compete following the expiration of a franchise agreement unless the franchisor has offered the franchisee the right to renew. Indiana restricts the duration and scope of acceptable post-relationship non-competes. But to this author’s knowledge, no state’s law, even California’s, is as far-reaching in restricting post-relationship competitive restrictions in franchise relationships as the Virginia bill. What to Do if the Bill Passes: If a franchisee seeks to break away from the franchisor during the term of the franchise agreement, the franchisor did not violate applicable franchise sales law, that the franchisee has the option to rescind the franchise, and the franchisor fulfilled its material obligations under the franchise agreement, then the franchisor should have a claim for lost future profits for the franchisee abandoning the franchise without cause. If Virginia passes this bill into law, it will be important for franchisors selling in Virginia to ensure that their standard franchise agreement clearly states that the franchisor has the right to collect such damages. As to the expiration of the franchise, traditionally, most franchisees have had the option to continue the franchise relationship at expiration if they sign the franchisor’s “then-current form of franchise agreement.” The problem has been that franchise agreements have often become more one-sided for the franchisor, particularly as a system matures, and if there is a non-compete applicable upon non-renewal then the franchisee has little ability to negotiate more favorable terms at “renewal.” The bill, if enacted, would dramatically change that dynamic at expiration. One provision that franchisors might consider adding to their agreements is an option for the franchisor to purchase the business as a going concern at expiration, if the franchisee does not accept the franchisor’s offer of a new agreement at least 90 days prior to expiration. The provision would require the franchisor to pay the fair market value of the franchised business, including goodwill attributable to local use of the trademarks, and also require the franchisee to agree to provisions that are customary in a business purchase and sale agreement. Covenants not to compete, after sale of a business for value, are customary and should be enforceable following such an arms-length sale, notwithstanding the language of the Virginia bill. Another approach that may be helpful to franchisors is to define all customer information collected or obtained by the Franchisee during the franchise relationship as proprietary to the franchise system and forbid the use of that information subsequent to the end of the franchise relationship. Such a provision should state that the Franchisee has a license to use the customer data during the relationship, and that license (and the local goodwill with those customers) is an asset that the Franchised Business that the Franchisee may sell to a new franchisee as part of an approved transfer. Such a provision, particularly with franchisees who are new to the system and the industry, may enable the franchisor to stop a former franchisee from using the customer data under trade secret laws, notwithstanding the bill discussed above. Such a restriction would make it less attractive for the franchisee to leave the system. However, such a provision could also have negative ramifications for the franchisor if it is sued by a franchisee’s customer. The details of each such provision, and others to protect truly proprietary and unique assets of a franchise system, require careful consideration and customized drafting. However, if Virginia enacts this bill into law, then it would join a select group of states that have tilted the playing field in favor of veteran franchisees, and franchisors will need to consult with experienced counsel who understands the ramifications of contract provisions.
January 31, 2025
Franchise Law
Franchise Sales Likely to Get New Level of Regulation Over Third-Party Sellers
A bill passed by the California Senate on May 22, 2024, Senate Bill No. 919 (“Bill 919”), will address a gap in the regulation of franchise sales – namely, a lack of transparency regarding the role and background of independent franchisee recruiters, often known as “franchise brokers.” This bill, which has the rare support of both the International Franchise Association (the “IFA”) and franchisee advocate groups such as the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (“AAFD”), now heads to the California General Assembly for approval. It appears to have a strong chance to become law this year and to influence franchise sales regulation nationally. Historically, franchise laws have focused on requiring affirmative disclosures by franchisors so that franchisee prospects can obtain information about the franchise system to better understand the business opportunity that they are evaluating. While the vast majority of franchise registration states require franchisors to submit information about their third-party brokers in franchise seller disclosure forms, those provisions pre-dated the growth of franchise seller networks such as FranNet, FranChoice and The Entrepreneur’s Source (among many others). Such intermediary companies, which usually identify themselves as consultants to prospective franchisees, are a major source of new franchisees to many growing systems and play an important role in franchise sales. Because those companies have many franchises in their “inventory” (sometimes hundreds) and therefore only occasional contact with each franchisor, they don’t fit the model of a broker regularly engaged in selling for a relatively small group of brands who the franchisor would recognize as its regularly used franchise seller. To date, only two states (New York and Washington), have historically required brokers to register themselves as franchise sellers. If passed, Bill 919 would require third-party franchise sellers, including the large networks with dozens of individual representatives, to register with the State of California. The fee for a franchise seller filing an initial registration application is $250, with a $150 annual renewal fee and $50 fee to amend a registration upon a material change to the application information. More notably, Bill 919 adds a requirement for third-party franchise sellers to provide a disclosure document to prospective franchise buyers. The broker would be required to disclose some of the categories of information that franchisors must supply in their Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”). Specifically, brokers must submit a Uniform Third-Party Franchise Seller Disclosure Form and a Uniform Third-Party Franchise Seller Disclosure Document (“FSDD”) along with their registration application. In addition to registering the FSDD with the state, franchise sellers must also present this document to a prospective franchisee prior to engaging with them about a franchise opportunity. The FSDD must include the following information: A cover page containing standardized and general language that is not specific to a particular broker and will include, at a minimum, the following information: A description of the types of franchise sellers A seller’s role in the sales process The services a seller might provide Methods of compensation for a seller’s services Examples of questions a prospective franchisee might ask a seller General information about the specific seller’s legal and trade names, state and year of formation, principal address, owners and key personnel, and contact information The franchise seller’s professional experience during the last five years Administrative, civil, or criminal actions against the seller within the last five years alleging fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or similar violations (which aligns with the types of matters disclosed in Item 3 of a franchisor’s FDD) The industries a seller represents and the number of brands within each industry A description of services provided by the seller How the seller is actually compensated, including how the amount of compensation is calculated Whether a broker network/organization or franchise sales organization may receive additional consideration The name and contact information for every franchisee that the seller sold a franchise to anywhere in the United States during the last calendar year, including the number of units sold to each franchisee With respect to enforcement, Bill 919 creates a cause of action that allows franchisees to sue for damages and rescission if the seller violates the law with respect to a franchise sale. Additionally, the California commissioner can issue a stop order prohibiting a franchise seller from offering or selling franchises in the state if it finds that a seller has failed to comply with any applicable provisions of law or rules issued by the commissioner. The new rules and penalties have the same scope as a franchise sale under the California Franchise Investment Laws. So, they will apply to franchise sellers who are based in California, but also to anyone “consulting with” a prospective franchisee who is a resident of or has a principal place of business in California, or if the franchised business will be in California. Any franchise broker that wishes to sell franchises that will be located in California, or to prospects located in California, will need to register. The bill exempts California licensed real estate brokers and securities brokers-dealers. Since none of the mandatory disclosure items are limited to California sellers or California franchisees, Bill 919 also may be a template for the regulation of franchise sellers on a nationwide level, particularly in those other states that require pre-sale registration of franchise offerings. If passed, Bill 919 will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
July 29, 2024
Franchise Law
SBA Exiting Regulation of Franchise Relationships as Part of Effort to Increase Availability of Its Small Business Loan Programs
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending various regulations governing SBA's 7(a) Loan Program and 504 Loan Program, including streamlining determinations of loan applicants’ eligibility as small business owners. As part of the amended regulations, the SBA is removing the provisions relating to affiliation based on franchise and license agreements, along with all other provisions evaluating affiliation based on factors other than actual or indirect (or “beneficial”) ownership. Because of that removal, the SBA is eliminating the SBA Franchise Registry as of May 11, 2023. As stated by the SBA, “These revisions remove the principle of control of one entity over another from consideration of affiliation; therefore, the mere fact that an applicant may be a franchisee is not in itself a reason that would render the applicant ineligible for an SBA loan, and thus there is no longer a compelling reason to maintain the SBA Franchise Directory". In addition, the SBA will not require franchisors and franchisees to sign any sort of standard or pre-negotiated franchise agreement addendum to obtain an SBA-guaranteed loan. Instead, as is a requirement for all SBA guarantees of loans, lenders must examine the franchised business for affiliation based on ownership. The SBA announcement described the following as an example: “(W)hen lending to a Franchised business, the SBA Lender must determine who owns the applicant business and any businesses the applicant owns in accordance with these regulations. However, neither the SBA Lender nor SBA will review the applicant Franchised business for affiliation with other entities beyond ownership; the applicant business will not be considered affiliated with the Franchisor or other Franchised businesses except by ownership.” What Does This Mean for Franchising? As to regulation of the franchise relationship, this marks a major retrenchment of SBA’s involvement in that area, having required franchise agreement changes as a condition of lending for several decades. However, readers should note that the Federal Trade Commission is scrutinizing franchise relationships due to a large volume of complaints it has received from franchisees in the process of considering updates to its long-standing Franchise Sales Rule. During March 2023, the FTC issued a “Solicitation for Public Comments on Provisions of Franchise Agreements and Franchisor Business Practices” that may be a preliminary step towards FTC issuing rules restricting franchise agreement terms and/or franchisor business practices that it perceives to be “unfair” to franchisees. In addition, the FTC is accepting comments on extending its proposed rule banning non-competition agreements in employment agreements to include franchise relationships. Finally, bills have been introduced in several state legislatures to substantively regulate aspects of franchise relationships. In terms of franchisee financing, this change may streamline obtaining an SBA-guaranteed loan. However, as the SBA noted in issuing its new regulations, to obtain an SBA guarantee a lender must determine whether the applicant meets all eligibility and other SBA Loan Program Requirements, including: certifying that the applicant does not have the ability to obtain some or all of the requested loan funds on reasonable terms from non-government sources, ensuring that applicants are U.S. citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, obtaining personal and corporate guaranties, confirming that the applicant business has the ability to repay the loan through cash flow of the business, and has eligible uses of proceeds, verifying financial information, obtaining proper collateral and lien position, determining whether there is a direct or indirect impact on historic properties (and) compliance with environmental policies and procedures, and closing the loan in accordance with SBA program requirements. This is a reminder that obtaining an SBA loan is still not the easiest way to finance. Also, we anticipate that, for the development of new franchise locations, lenders may require heightened business plan verification and support from franchisors, especially for emerging franchise systems and for applicants that are new to the system (even for larger franchisors). It may be more important than ever for franchisors to have a package of unit-level financial performance information to provide to lenders.
March 14, 2023
Franchise Law
"Not So Fast" – Maryland Gas Station Operator Obtains Injunction Stopping Franchise Termination
On May 25, 2022, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland issued a preliminary injunction ordering PMIG 1025, LLC and Petroleum Marketing Group, Inc. ("PMG") to continue its franchise relationship with the operators of the “Airport Shell” retail gas station and convenience store near Baltimore Washington International Airport during the pendency of the operators' case that PMG did not have good cause to end their petroleum franchise relationship under the U.S. Petroleum Marketing Practice Act (the "PMPA"). The Court, through highly respected veteran jurist Paul W. Grimm, ruled that the operators had a reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits of their claims that PMG improperly terminated the Franchise Agreement for the operation of Airport Shell. The Court further found that the harm to the plaintiffs without an injunction issuing, namely losing control over their business, was greater than the potential harm to the defendants with such an injunction. The PMPA, which begins in Title 15 of the U.S. Code at Section 2801, protects franchisees by limiting the circumstances under which a petroleum franchisor may terminate or “fail to renew” a motor fuel franchise. Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co. LLC, 559 U.S. 175, 177 (2010) (citing 15 U.S.C. §2802). The PMPA provides protections against termination or non-renewal to motor fuel dealers that are superior to the typical provisions of the franchise and lease agreements between petroleum sellers and operators, or indeed between typical business format franchisors and their franchisees. The particular factual circumstances of the BWI Airport Shell case are quite complicated, as the site at issue is subject to a master lease with the Maryland Aviation Administration. However, the essence of the dispute is whether PMG acted in good faith (meaning “subjective good faith” based on an “honest evaluation of the franchisor’s own business needs”) and in the ordinary course of its business in demanding substantial rent increases and property improvements as a condition of continuing the franchise, or whether it imposed those conditions as pretext or "poison pill" to force out the operator and begin operating the location through employees. This is a scenario familiar to business format franchising, particularly where the franchisor also controls the real estate on which the franchised business operates. The injunction issued is just for the operators' case, as it proceeds through the U.S. district court to trial before a federal jury (likely in the summer of 2023). However, it is notable that to demonstrate its legal right to end the franchise relationship, PMG will be required to prove that the increased rent and burdens it demanded as a condition of franchise renewal were "the result of determinations made by the franchisor in good faith and in the normal course of business, and . . . franchisor's insistence upon such changes or additions [were not] for the purpose of preventing the renewal of the franchise relationship." While the PMPA does not apply to non-petroleum business format franchises, veteran business format franchisees being confronted with commercially unreasonable demands to renew their franchise should consider whether decisions under that law, used by analogy, can help their cause. The case decision described is Fursyth Petroleum Foundation Inc., et al., Plaintiffs v. PMIG 1025, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. Case No. PWG 21-cv-2433 (Dated May 25, 2022).
July 27, 2022
