D75/100FDD 2026
Arctic Elevation — Litigation & Risk
Health & Wellness - Other · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5
Lower Risk
No litigation cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.
Source: FDD Items 3–5
FDD Items 3 & 4
Litigation Metrics
Cases disclosed
0
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
75 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
CAUTION
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
FDD Items 5, 6 & 17 — what you give up
Contract Risk Indicators
Mandatory arbitration
Not required
You retain the right to sue in court
Jury trial waiver
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
Non-compete
2 yrs
Post-termination restriction on similar businesses
Franchisor can compete
Yes
Franchisor can open competing locations in or near your territory
Right of first refusal
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
Washington
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 75/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01HIGHGoing Concern status indicates franchisor financial distress or viability questions
- 02MEDNo Item 19 financial performance disclosure (Avg Revenue and Net Income not disclosed) prevents ROI validation
- 03MINORExtremely high royalty fee at 50% of standard rate is unsustainably extractive and suggests franchisor cash flow desperation
- 04MINORTiny system size (only 3 units) with 50% YoY growth is statistically insignificant and indicates pre-scale/unproven concept
- 05MINORWide investment range ($177K-$762K, 4.3x spread) suggests inconsistent unit economics or undefined startup scope
- 06MINOR20-year term locks franchisee into relationship with financially unstable franchisor for two decades
Severity inferred from FDD text — not a regulatory or legal classification
Litigation data from FDD Items 3, 4, and 5. SBA data from public 7(a) FOIA records (FY2020–present). Not legal advice — consult a franchise attorney before signing any franchise agreement.