CleanNet USA Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $20K – $85K
- Disclosed sales
- partial, no system average
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (1)
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
CleanNet USA is a commercial janitorial franchise servicing offices, retail, and facilities under recurring contracts. Franchisees hire and supervise cleaning crews, manage client accounts, and grow revenue through contract volume.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A CleanNet USA franchise requires a total initial investment of $20K – $85K, including a $16K – $70K franchise fee and an ongoing 10.0% royalty[2]. The 2023 FDD on file does not yield a unit-revenue figure we can publish. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: high - issued more than two years ago
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored4 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
- Investment
- $20K – $85K
- 6th pct Cleaning & Ma…
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Per franchisee, not per outletOutlet subsetPartial period
- Royalty
- 10.0%
- 72nd pct Cleaning & Ma…
- Units
- 1,296
- 86th pct Cleaning & Ma…
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Cleaning & Maintenance · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Cleaning & Maintenance median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $20K – $85K including a $16K franchise fee, 10.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSItem 19 discloses "Gross Billings" (monthly cleaning-contract revenue billed to accounts) rather than whole-unit annual gross sales; figures are Maryland-only, tiny samples (1-2 franchisees per package tier) for 2022.
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 70/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -90 franchised outlets in the latest year (23 opened, 113 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL14 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 10 name the franchisor itself, 3 its parent, affiliates or predecessor, 1 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- CleanNet of Baltimore/Washington, Inc.
- Parent company
- CleanNet U.S.A., Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2023 FDD
- Predecessor
- CleanNet U.S.A., Inc. (predecessor to CBW for existing sub-franchise rights)
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- President
- Mark F. Salek
- Incorporated in
- Virginia
- HQ
- 8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 500, Vienna, Virginia 22182
- Auditor
- Yount, Hyde & Barbour P.C.
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $12.7M
- vs $96.4M prior year
Overview
About
- CEO
- Mark F. Salek
- Headquarters
- Virginia
- Founded
- 1987
- FDD year
- 2023
- States available
- 19
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 69% below the typical cleaning & maintenance franchise.
Source: FDD 2023 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown11 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Fee | $16K | $70K | |
| Initial Cleaning Equipment and Supplies | $1K | $3K | |
| Cellular Phone (for 3 months) | $120 | $450 | |
| Computer System and Internet | $2K | $2K | |
| Great Plains Software Package and Software Support | $0 | $5K | |
| Business Licenses and Permits | $40 | $125 | |
| Insurance | $22 | $600 | |
| Office Supplies, Stationery | $25 | $600 | |
| Business Entity Formation and other Legal & Accounting | $100 | $1K | |
| Initial Certification Expenses | $125 | $250 | |
| Additional Funds (1st 3 Months) | $2K | $3K | |
| Total initial investment | $20K | $85K |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $20K – $85K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $2K – $3K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $16K – $70K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 10.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 0.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 11.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 10.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 0.0% |
| Technology fee | $0 |
| Inventory (initial) | $1K – $3K |
| Total fee load | 11.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Source: FDD 2023 · Item 19
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
No Item 19 revenue figure for CleanNet USA is on file. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one CleanNet USA unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2023 FDD
Financial Performance
Item 19 discloses "Gross Billings" (monthly cleaning-contract revenue billed to accounts) rather than whole-unit annual gross sales; figures are Maryland-only, tiny samples (1-2 franchisees per package tier) for 2022.
Averaged per franchisee, not per outlet - not comparable with per-outlet figures
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Covers a partial period, not a full year
- Item 19 type
- Initial Volume Fulfillment / Monthly Gross Billings by Initial Package tier (Maryland franchisees only, 2022) — not whole-unit annual revenue
- Sample size
- 4 franchisees
- vs category median 32 · small
- Reporting year
- 2022
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2023
- Disclosed in the 2023 filing, covering 2022
- Transparency
- 2 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · below
Compared against 191 Cleaning & Maintenance brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 11.0% — above the Cleaning & Maintenance median of 8.3%.
Disclosure
Item 19 reports revenue for a partial period rather than annual gross sales, so unit revenue is not directly comparable.
Operator retention
System contracting at -10.9% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Cleaning & Maintenance medians
How CleanNet USA Compares
Per franchisee, not per outlet - the category median is per-outlet only, so no comparison is shown
Category median of published Cleaning & Maintenance brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2023 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 1,296
- Opened
- 23
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 113
- Turnover rate
- 8.7%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -10.9%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -10.9%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 6
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 12 · 19 states reported
The Territory Map
FDD Item 12 reports the state count, but the specific list isn't in our current data. The map will appear once we re-extract from the FDD or enough franchisee contacts are available.
19
states with franchisees (per FDD Item 12)
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
1 current owner across 1 state.
- II 1
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20; 181 entries carry no state. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
A system losing more than 10% of its units year-over-year is a red flag. Check whether closures are concentrated in specific regions.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 1 7(a) loan on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.
- Total loans
- 1
- Loan volume
- $150K
- Median loan
- $150K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- Under 10 loans (1)
- Insufficient SBA coverage: 1 loan, rate hidden below 10
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Under 10 loans (1)
- 5-yr charge-off
- Under 10 loans (1)
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 1
- Defaults
- N/A
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
CleanNet USA presents HIGH RISK due to a shrinking 6.5% declining unit base, multiple active misclassification and wage-hour lawsuits, prior regulatory violations, complete lack of profitability disclosures, and unprotected territories—indicating a deteriorating franchise system with serious legal and operational red flags.
Why this reads harsher than the A grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Multiple franchisee class actions alleging misclassification of franchisees as employees/independent contractors, wage-and-hour violations, and misrepresentation regarding available cleaning contracts; largest settlement was $7.5M (Sola, Massachusetts, 2013) covering several related Massachusetts arbitrations. A 2020-2022 California PAGA action settled for $925,000 total. One pending EEOC/MDCR discrimination charge as of the FDD date. A 2000-2001 Maryland Securities Division consent order concerned incomplete/misleading FDDs and unlawful earnings claims.
Largest disclosed settlement: $7,500,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Yount, Hyde & Barbour P.C.
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: No
- Restricted to system-approved products: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 70 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORSystem declining 6.5% YoY (1296 to ~1211 units) indicates shrinking franchise base and potential saturation or dissatisfaction
- 02HIGHMultiple active litigation cases involving misclassification of franchisees as independent contractors raise legal/classification risk and suggest potential reclassification liability
- 03MINORMaryland Securities Division consent order regarding earnings representations and disclosure documentation indicates prior regulatory violations and credibility concerns
- 04MEDNo average revenue or net income disclosed in FDD Item 19—impossible to assess actual unit economics or franchisee profitability
- 05MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk; franchisees can be undercut by other CleanNet franchisees in same geographic area
- 06MINOR10% royalty on gross billings (not net profit) is aggressive; royalties paid regardless of profitability, increasing franchisee financial stress
- 07HIGHWage and hour litigation suggests operational model may pressure franchisees to misclassify their own employees or violate labor laws
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail14 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
Kenyitta Barber v. CleanNet USA, Inc.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2021-10-28 · U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Michigan Department of Civil Rights (cross-filed charge) · EEOC Charge No. 23A-2022-00114C; MDCR Charge No. 621360
“Kenyitta Barber v. CleanNet USA, Inc., EEOC Charge No. 23A-2022-00114C, MDCR Charge No. 621360, filed October 28, 2021. This is a charge of discrimination based on sex and race by a CleanNet of Greater Michigan franchise owner, Kenyitta Barber. Barber owns a Michigan limited liability company named First Prestige Commercial Cleaning, LLC, which company owns the CleanNet unit franchise.”Page 14 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The matter is under investigation at this time. The companies intend to defend the charge vigorously.”
Concluded (9)
Irma Guerrero and Ariel Cortes Silva v. D&G Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a CleanNet of the Bay Area; CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., CleanNet of Southern California, Inc., and Does 1 through 25
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2020-05-13 · Superior Court of Alameda County, California · RG 20062750
“Irma Guerrero and Ariel Cortes Silva v. D&G Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a CleanNet of the Bay Area; CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., CleanNet of Southern California, Inc., and Does 1 through 25 (Case No. RG 20062750); Superior Court of Alameda County, California.”Page 18 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties engaged in private mediation, which resulted in a settlement of all claims with the following terms: CSC will pay Guerrero $100,000 in damages; D&G Enterprises will pay Silva $92,000 in damages; the PAGA claims are being settled for a total of $925,000 by all Defendants.”
Luis Castillo v. CleanNet USA, Inc.; D&G Enterprises, Inc.; CleanNet of Southern California, Inc.; Paqnet, Inc.; FCDK, Inc.; and Does 1-15
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2017-11-21 · Superior Court of San Francisco County, California; removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of California · CGC-17-562611; 3:17-cv-07277-JCS
“Luis Castillo v. CleanNet USA, Inc.; D&G Enterprises, Inc.; CleanNet of Southern California, Inc.; Paqnet, Inc.; FCDK, Inc.; and Does 1-15 (Case No. CGC-17-562611; filed November 21, 2017) in the Superior Court of San Francisco, County, California, removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:17-cv-07277-JCS.”Page 17 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On April 4, 2019, the remaining parties settled the human trafficking claims under California and federal law for a total payment of $105,000.00, with CleanNet of Southern California paying nothing and CleanNet USA having responsibility for half of the amount (co-defendant D&G assuming responsibility for the other half.” (page 18)
Jose Segovia and Genesis I Cleaning, LLC v. CleanNet USA, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2015-12-01 · Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia · 2015-15918
“Jose Segovia and Genesis I Cleaning, LLC v. CleanNet USA, Inc. (Case No. 2015-15918, in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia). On December 1, 2015, this lawsuit was filed by a franchisee against CleanNet. The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, fraud, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, misclassification of employees as independent contractors”Page 16 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties successfully negotiated a settlement prior to mediation, and the matter was resolved with CleanNet paying $20,700 to Genesis I Cleaning, LLC, $2,500 in attorney’s fees, and $849.85 for janitorial services performed.”
Eddy Torres v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., MKH Services, Inc., d/b/a CleanNet of Philadelphia, and CleanNet Systems of Pittsburgh, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2014-04-10 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (on removal from the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania) · 2:14-cv-02818-AB; 140400901
“Eddy Torres v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., MKH Services, Inc., d/b/a CleanNet of Philadelphia, and CleanNet Systems of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Case No. 2:14-cv-02818-AB; filed May 16, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; on removal from Case No. 140400901; filed April 10, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania).”Page 16 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On October 28, 2015, without admitting liability, the parties settled the case. In exchange for mutual releases between Plaintiff and all Defendants, MKH terminated Plaintiff's franchise, forgave any indebtedness remaining on the promissory note between MKH and Plaintiff, and paid to Plaintiff $33,750 of the initial franchise fee and for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs.”
Esther Estrada, Isaac Carrazco and Maria Jacobo, et al. v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., D&G Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a CleanNet of the Bay Area, CleanNet of San Jose, CleanNet of Southern California, Inc., CleanNet of San Diego, CleanNet of Sacramento, Mark Salek and Mark Crum
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2014-04-18 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; claims arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association (Case No. 02-15-0005-2115) · 3:14-cv-1785
“Esther Estrada, Isaac Carrazco and Maria Jacobo, et al. v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., D&G Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a CleanNet of the Bay Area, CleanNet of San Jose, CleanNet of Southern California, Inc., CleanNet of San Diego, CleanNet of Sacramento, Mark Salek and Mark Crum (Case No. 3:14-cv-1785; filed April 18, 2014), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.”Page 17 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The remaining claimants’ claims were settled with D&G paying each of the claimants $2,000. A stipulation of dismissal was filed by the parties on June 7, 2018. The matter is now dismissed with prejudice.”
Jose Sanchez v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc. and CleanNet of Illinois, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2014-03-26 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 1:14-cv-02143
“Jose Sanchez v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc. and CleanNet of Illinois, Inc. (Case No. 1:14-cv-02143; filed March 26, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). On March 26, 2014, Jose Sanchez (the "Plaintiff") filed a class action complaint against CleanNet and CNI, the regional subfranchisor for Illinois”Page 15 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties settled the matter for a payment of $14,000, and $1,975 in mediation and other costs, payable to their attorney of record. The settlement includes a termination and rescission of the franchise agreement.”
Suad Elmi, Metresse Ali and Elmi's Green, LLC v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., TSN, Inc., d/b/a CleanNet of the Northwest, and Paul Nikpour
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2014-06-17 · Circuit Court of Washington County, Oregon · C14-3487CV
“Suad Elmi, Metresse Ali and Elmi’s Green, LLC v. CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., TSN, Inc., d/b/a CleanNet of the Northwest, and Paul Nikpour, (Case No. C14-3487CV; filed June 17, 2014, in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Oregon).”Page 14 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On December 29, 2014, without admitting liability, the parties settled the case. In exchange for mutual releases, TSN, Inc. terminated the Plaintiffs' franchise, forgave a promissory note signed by Saud Elmi in the amount of $800, and refunded $7,546 of the initial franchise fee.”
Sifredo Sola v. CleanNet USA, Inc.; In Re LP&D, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2012-03-31 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (originally filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2012-1267-BLS) · 1:12-cv-10590-JLT; 12-14894-FJB
“Sifredo Sola v. CleanNet USA, Inc. (Case No. 1:12-cv-10590-JLT), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and In Re LP&D, Inc. (Case No. 12-14894-FJB), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 31, 2012, Sifredo Sola ("Plaintiff"), a franchisee, filed a class action complaint in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts”Page 15 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“A settlement between CleanNet and Plaintiff was reached in November 2013 under which CleanNet committed to pay a total of $7.5 million.”
In the Matter of CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., Mark F. Salek and Robert L. Kahn
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · filed 2000 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Administrative Proceeding) · 2000-0044
“In the Matter of CleanNet U.S.A., Inc., Mark F. Salek and Robert L. Kahn (Administrative Proceeding before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2000-0044). In October 2000, the Maryland Securities Division (“Division”) commenced a proceeding against CleanNet, Mr. Salek and Mr. Kahn (“Respondents”) by issuance of an Order to Show Cause,”Page 16 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“franchise compliance training course; implement procedures to ensure compliance with the Maryland Franchise Law; cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law; and offer one franchisee the right to rescind its franchise agreement. The franchisee accepted, and CleanNet refunded $8,500 and cancelled the franchisee’s $5,000 promissory note.” (page 17)
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Concluded (3)
Caldwell Truegrit Cleaning, LLC v. CleanNet of Charlotte, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · CleanNet of Charlotte, Inc. (CNC), regional subfranchisor for North and South Carolina · filed 2014-08-06 · General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Caldwell County, North Carolina · 14CVS880
“Caldwell Truegrit Cleaning, LLC v. CleanNet of Charlotte, Inc. (Case No. 14CVS880; General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Caldwell County, North Carolina). On August 6, 2014, Caldwell Truegrit Cleaning, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed suit against CNC, the regional subfranchisor for North and South Carolina, alleging that CNC had breached the franchise agreement”Page 19 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On August 10, 2015, without admitting liability, the parties settled the case. In exchange for mutual releases, CNC terminated the franchise, cancelled the Plaintiff's promissory note in the original amount of $6,200, and refunded $5,000 of the initial franchise fee to Plaintiff.”
Elaine Ellis v. CleanNet of Charlotte, Inc.
settledThird-party plaintiff · CleanNet of Charlotte, Inc. (CNC), regional subfranchisor for North and South Carolina · filed 2014-07-09 · General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina · 13CVS20013
“Elaine Ellis v. CleanNet of Charlotte, Inc. (Case No. 13CVS20013; General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina). On or about July 9, 2014, Elaine Ellis ("Plaintiff") filed suit against CNC, the regional subfranchisor for North and South Carolina, Olga Orozco ("Orozco"), a franchisee of CNC, and Sandra Alzate ("Alzate"), an employee of Orozco,”Page 19 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On January 23, 2015, the parties settled the underlying tort action with Ellis for $15,000 ($10,000 of which was paid by CNC).”
City Entertainment Fort Worth, Ltd. d/b/a City Streets and Margaret A. Parkinson v. TGK, Inc. d/b/a CleanNet of Dallas-Fort Worth and Robert Davis
settledThird-party plaintiff · TGK, Inc. d/b/a CleanNet of Dallas-Fort Worth · filed 2010-11-16 · District Court, 348th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas · 348-248459-10
“City Entertainment Fort Worth, Ltd. d/b/a City Streets and Margaret A. Parkinson v. TGK, Inc. d/b/a CleanNet of Dallas-Fort Worth and Robert Davis (Case No. 348-248459-10; filed November 16, 2010), in the District Court, 348th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas.”Page 20 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case settled to the parties’ mutual satisfaction on April 17, 2012. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on June 19, 2012.”
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Concluded (1)
Rachael and Raymond Edwards v. Ed Lugo
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Ed Lugo, CleanNet's National Director of Franchise Sales & Marketing (sued as CBW's agent) · filed 2015-10-22 · District Court for Maryland, Prince George's County · 050200259982015
“Rachael and Raymond Edwards v. Ed Lugo; (Case No. 050200259982015; filed October 22, 2015, in the District Court for Maryland, Prince George's County). On October 22, 2015, Rachael Edwards and Raymond Edwards sued Ed Lugo, CleanNet’s National Director of Franchise Sales & Marketing.”Page 16 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“CBW resolved the dispute with a payment of $277.81 for monthly services provided by Plaintiffs. The case was dismissed by the court on January 8, 2016.”
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 11.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2023 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory radius | 30 mi |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Right of first refusalℹ | No |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 6 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Howard County, Maryland |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | Virginia |
| Litigation count | 14 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Multiple franchisee class actions alleging misclassification of franchisees as employees/independent contractors, wage-and-hour violations, and misrepresentation regarding available cleaning contracts; largest settlement was $7.5M (Sola, Massachusetts, 2013) covering several related Massachusetts arbitrations. A 2020-2022 California PAGA action settled for $925,000 total. One pending EEOC/MDCR discrimination charge as of the FDD date. A 2000-2001 Maryland Securities Division consent order concerned incomplete/misleading FDDs and unlawful earnings claims.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 15 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 8 hrs
- Training location
- Columbia, MD and/or Falls Church, VA (or CleanNet subfranchisor's facility)
- Ongoing training
- Optional
- Time to open
- 0 mo
- From signing to launch
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Microsoft's Great Plains Accounting
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Microsoft's Great Plains Accounting
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
182 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a CleanNet USA franchise?
The total investment to open a CleanNet USA franchise ranges from $20K – $85K, with an initial franchise fee of $16K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do CleanNet USA franchise owners earn?
Item 19 of the CleanNet USA FDD discloses figures for part of the system but no single average across all outlets. These are gross sales figures, not profit; the Revenue section shows what the filing reports and on what basis. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns CleanNet USA?
CleanNet USA is franchised by CleanNet of Baltimore/Washington, Inc.. Its parent company is CleanNet U.S.A., Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2023 filing.
What is Item 19 in the CleanNet USA FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the CleanNet USA FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is CleanNet USA's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for CleanNet USA (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.
How many CleanNet USA franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, CleanNet USA has 1,296 total units in the United States, including 1,296 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 23 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is CleanNet USA a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates CleanNet USA as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 70 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent CleanNet USA, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Cleaning & Maintenance franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Cleaning & Maintenance category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.