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
72 / 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
Arizona
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 72/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MINOROnly 1 unit in the system indicates either a brand-new franchise with unproven model or a failing system with severe attrition
- 02MINORNo average revenue or net income disclosure (Item 19) prevents validation of ROI claims and suggests financial performance may be weak or inconsistent
- 03MEDHigh investment range ($263K-$957K) with dual royalty structure (7% or $2,495 minimum) creates significant fixed cost burden with no disclosed break-even metrics
- 04MINOR10-year term is lengthy for an unproven single-unit franchise with no demonstrated unit growth trajectory
- 05MINORFranchise fee ($39K) appears modest relative to total investment, potentially masking higher hidden costs or indicating underpricing of the opportunity
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.