Buffalo Wild Wings GO litigation history

The franchisor

Concluded (1)

• Divane Pittman v. Buffalo Wild Wings International, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc.

  settled

  filed 2022-07-12 · Maryland state court; removed to the United States District Court for the State of Maryland · 8:22-cv-02173-GJH

  “… (United States District Court for the State of Maryland, Case No. 8:22-cv-02173-GJH, filed July 12, 2022). On July 12, 2022, a consumer, Divane Pittman (“Pittman”), filed a class action complaint in Maryland state court against us and Inspire Brands that alleged we engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On November 6, 2023, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release whereby we and Inspire Brands agreed to pay Pittman a total sum of $115,000 in exchange for a release of Pittman’s claims and dismissal of the action. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 29, 2023.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

• Halim v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc.

  pending

  Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (“our Parent/guarantor”) and Inspire Brands, Inc. · filed 2023-03-10 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1:23-cv-01495

  “… (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-01495, filed March 10, 2023). Plaintiff in this”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “This case remains pending. Defendants deny any liability in this matter and intend to defend themselves vigorously.” (page 25)

Concluded (4)

• Michelle Wheeldon, Lauran Hopper, and Tamara Wilson v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.

  settled

  Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. · filed 2021-11-16 · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:21-cv-01947-DLR

  “… (United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:21-cv-01947-DLR, filed November 16, 2021). On November 16, 2021, a consumer, Michelle Wheeldon (“Wheeldon”), filed a class action complaint against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On March 30, 2022, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release whereby Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. agreed to pay plaintiffs a total sum of $47,500 in exchange for a release of plaintiffs’ claims and a dismissal of the action.”

• New York v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. (“DBI”) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019

  “New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019). In this matter, the N.Y. Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018.”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On September 21, 2020, without admitting or denying the NYAG’s allegations, DBI and the NYAG entered into a consent agreement to resolve the State’s complaint. Under the consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 2026” (page 27)

• The People of the State of California v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397

  “The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019). On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done); (b) not to enforce the disputed provision in existing agreements or to intervene in any action by the Attorneys General if a franchisee seeks to enforce the provision”

• The People of the State of California v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597

  “The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019.) On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc.”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The Attorney General of the State of California filed the above-reference lawsuit in order to place the settlement agreement in the public record, and the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment.”