Moderate — Review
2 cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.
Source: FDD Items 3–5
FDD Items 3 & 4
Litigation Metrics
Cases disclosed
2
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
56 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
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
1 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
No
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
Florida
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 56/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MINORNo financial performance disclosure (Item 19) prevents assessment of actual franchisee profitability and ROI
- 02MEDRegulatory violations including Maryland Securities Commissioner consent order indicates disclosure and registration failures
- 03HIGHLitigation involving fraud/deceptive practices counterclaim and trademark disputes suggests franchisor-franchisee relationship strain
- 04MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk between franchisees within same market
- 05MINORExtreme investment range spread ($1,945-$20,465) suggests undefined startup costs and inconsistent onboarding
- 06MEDCommission-based revenue model with no income disclosure creates unpredictable cash flow and recovery timeline
- 07MINOR3-year term is relatively short, limiting long-term business stability planning
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.