FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

D1 Training litigation history

What D1 Training disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 15; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

D1 is involved in one completed arbitration it initiated against a former franchisee (won on all claims, $218,191.93 liquidated damages awarded); faces multiple pending franchisee lawsuits/arbitrations (Ostrow, Beckham, Chriss, Rose, Garrett, Garrigan, Reisterer, Vest, Wesselhoft, Cozad, Robberson) alleging fraud and misrepresentation about the franchise system, some settled via territory repurchase; an EEOC discrimination charge is pending; and affiliate Ringside Development (BIO-One) settled four state franchise-registration enforcement actions (CA, IL, WA) between 2018-2021.

Item 3 (litigation) · 15 matters disclosed · 9 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (8)

Irsai v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC and D1 Sports Training MIL, LLC
pending
filed 2026-03-01 · EEOC Charlotte District Office · EEOC Charge No. 430-2026-02629
“… EEOC Charge No. 430-2026-02629 (EEOC Charlotte District Office, filed March 2026). A former General Manager”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The charge is currently pending EEOC investigation. No finding of probable cause or liability has been made. We deny the allegations and intend to defend vigorously. Except as”
D1 Sports Franchise, LLC v. Alex Nicholas, Chase Howard, Francesco Amati, Joel Wildman and D1 North Naples, LLC
pending
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2025-04-10 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 012500017990 (also printed as 01-25-0001-7990)
“… AAA Case No. 012500017990 (American Arbitration Association,”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The arbitration remains pending as to Alex Nicholas, and we are awaiting a final decision. Nicholas v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC and Franchise Fastlane, LLC, Case No. 25CV-199” (page 14)
Heath Robberson, Amy Abraham, and PBY Sports Incorporated v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-10-10 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 01-25-0005-0988
“… AAA Case No. 01-25-0005-0988 (American Arbitration Association, Statement of Claim filed”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “We intend to defend against these allegations vigorously in the arbitration proceeding. Irsai v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC and D1 Sports Training MIL, LLC, EEOC Charge No.”
Jon and Maija Reisterer and Smiltis Corporation v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-09-11 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 01-25-0004-5884
“… AAA Case No. 01-25-0004-5884 (American Arbitration Association, demand filed September 11, 2025).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “We intend to defend against these allegations vigorously in the arbitration proceeding. Ryan Vest, et al. v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC, Case Number 01-25-0003-3763 (American”
Justin Cozad and Kyng Shyp LLC v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-09-26 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 01-25-0004- 8537
“… AAA Case No. 01-25-0004- 8537 (American Arbitration Association, Statement of Claim filed September 26, 2025).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “engaged in negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. The claimants seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest, arbitration costs, treble”
Michael Garrett and Jamber One LLC v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC, Franchise Fastlane, LLC, and Sports Med Properties, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-08-04 · Circuit Court for Williamson County, Tennessee; and the American Arbitration Association · 25CV-472 (and AAA Case No. 01-25-0004-0011)
“… Case No. 25CV-472 (Circuit Court for Williamson County,”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “We plan to defend vigorously against all claims. The litigation is pending. Michael Garrett and Jamber One LLC v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC, AAA Case No. 01-25- 0004-0011”
Ryan Vest, et al. v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-07-17 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0003-3763
“… Case Number 01-25-0003-3763 (American Arbitration Association, demand filed July 17, 2025, initiation July 24, 2025). Claimants”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The claimants sought actual and consequential damages, treble damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, rescission of”
William James Beckham III, et al. v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-05-19 · Circuit Court for the Twenty-First Judicial District in Williamson County, Tennessee · 25CV-290
“… Case No. 25CV-290 (Circuit Court for the Twenty-First Judicial District in Williamson County, Tennessee, filed May”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Court recently ruled that these claims should be heard via arbitration per each claimant’s franchise agreement. We categorically deny all material allegations and intend to” (page 15)

Concluded (2)

Lisa and Brian Garrigan and Garrigan Capital, Inc. v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-08-06 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 01-25-0003-7271
“… AAA Case No. 01-25-0003-7271 (American Arbitration Association, demand filed August 6, 2025).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Pursuant to a Territory Re-Purchase Agreement effective April 9, 2026, the franchise agreement was terminated, we agreed to repurchase the territory for $80,100, and the”
Susan and Michael Wesselhoft v. D1 Sports Franchise, LLC
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-08-04 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 01-25-0003- 6883
“… AAA Case No. 01-25-0003- 6883 (American Arbitration Association, demand filed August 4, 2025). Claimants Susan and”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Pursuant to a Territory Re-Purchase Agreement effective April 9, 2026, the franchise agreement was terminated, we agreed to pay $53,375 as a territory re-purchase price in” (page 18)

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (4)

In the Matter of Determining Whether There Has Been a Violation of the Franchise Investment Protections Act of Washington by: Ringside Development Company d/b/a Bio-One Colorado, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Ringside Development Company dba BIO-One Colorado Inc. · State of Washington, Securities Division of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions · S-20-3007-20-CO01
“On November 4, 2020, the State of Washington, through and with the Securities Division of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions) and Ringside Development Company”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “they agreed to pay Washington's investigative fee in the amount of $1000.00. On May 27, 2021, the State of California (through the Commissioner of the Department of Financial”
In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC. (California, 2018)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Ringside Development Company dba BIO-One Colorado Inc. · State of California, Commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight (now the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation)
“On November 7, 2018, the State of California (through the Commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight now the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) and”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In settling the matter, they paid the state $2,500 and agreed to desist and refrain from the further offer or sale of franchises in California unless and until the offers have”
In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC. (California, 2021)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Ringside Development Company dba BIO-One Colorado Inc. · State of California, Commissioner of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“On May 27, 2021, the State of California (through the Commissioner of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) and Ringside Development Company dba BIO-One”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “they settled the matter by agreeing to desist and refrain from violating Section 31200 of the California Franchise Investment Law. Except as stated herein, no other litigation”
In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC. (Illinois, 2020)
concluded
Ringside Development Company dba BIO-One Colorado Inc. · State of Illinois, Attorney General’s Office
“On October 5, 2020, the State of Illinois (through the Attorney General’s Office) and Ringside Development Company dba BIO-One Colorado Inc. entered into an “Assurance of”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In settling the matter, they paid the state $2,000 and agreed to desist and refrain from the further offer or sale of franchises in Illinois unless and until their disclosure”

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Pending (1)

Ostrow, et al. v. Bauer, et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · Julie Bauer (Vice President of Franchise Development) and Austin Clark (Vice President of Operations) · filed 2025-03-25 · Circuit Court for Williamson County, Tennessee · 25CV-166
“… Case No. 25CV-166 (Circuit Court for Williamson County, Tennessee, filed March 25, 2025). Plaintiffs Scott Ostrow, Courtney Ostrow, and SSR”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The defendants intend to defend against the allegations and have filed motions to dismiss on June 3, 2025, as amended August 6, 2025 (SSR Tallahassee, LLC, Julie Bauer and”

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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Active multi-franchisee litigation alleging fraud and misrepresentation of semi-absentee model — core business claim is disputed
Affiliate (BIO-One) regulatory settlements for unregistered franchise sales suggest compliance and disclosure issues across related entities

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the D1 Training verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls