Del Taco Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $1.5M – $3.3M
- Disclosed sales
- $1.6M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 18.9%
- on 50 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Del Taco is a quick-service franchise serving value-priced Mexican fare, tacos, burritos, and fries, alongside American items like burgers and shakes. Franchisees run restaurants with drive-thru and counter service, managing food prep, staffing, and costs.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Del Taco franchise requires a total initial investment of $1.5M – $3.3M, including a $35K franchise fee and an ongoing 5.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $1.6M[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 18.9% charge-off rate across 50 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file
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 scored8 of 8 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $1.5M – $3.3M
- 98th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $1.6M
- Outlet subset30th pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- 12th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 594
- 90th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- 18.9%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants 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 $1.5M – $3.3M including a $35K franchise fee, 5.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $1.6M/year (median $1.5M) (reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system).
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 51/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 18.9% across 50 loans (above the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHPositive: net +40 franchised outlets in the latest year (58 opened, 18 closed); 4 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- FLAGItem 4 discloses a bankruptcy of an officer or of a company an officer ran, not of the franchisor. Review Item 4 for details.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Del Taco LLC
- Parent company
- Del Taco Holdings, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Jack in the Box Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2025 FDD
- CEO title
- Brand President
- Tom Rose
- Incorporated in
- CA
- HQ
- 25521 Commercentre Drive, Suite 150, Lake Forest, California 92630
- Auditor
- KPMG LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $1.6B
- vs $1.7B prior year
Independent franchisee associations
- Franchise Advisory Council (FAC)
Franchisee-led councils or alliances disclosed in Item 20. Indicates operator voice.
Affiliated brands
- Jack in the Box Properties
- Different Rules
Other brands the franchisor or its parent operates (Item 1).
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 6
1 other brand on this site name Jack in the Box Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Tom Rose
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 1988
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 16
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 396% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown17 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franchise Fee | $35K | $35K | |
| Promotional Fee | $10K | $10K | |
| Land | — | — | |
| Fee for Architectural and Engineering and other Related Consultant Services | $27K | $124K | |
| Environmental Assessment | $3K | $34K | |
| On-site Improvements | $186K | $650K | |
| Building Improvements | $490K | $1.2M | |
| Furnishings, Fixtures and Equipment | $400K | $750K | |
| IT Equipment & Installation, Computer-related Services & Licensing | $59K | $100K | |
| Security Cameras | $6K | $8K | |
| Technical Support Expenses | $2K | $4K | |
| Initial Training Expenses | $194K | $253K | |
| Crew Training Expenses | $48K | $68K | |
| Additional Funds – 3 Months | $28K | $65K | |
| Inventory | $7K | $7K | |
| Licenses, Fees and Deposits | $3K | $6K | |
| Fee for trade area survey analysis | $0 | $8K | |
| Total initial investment | $1.5M | $3.3M |
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
- $1.5M – $3.3M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $28K – $65K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $35K – $35K
- Middle of category vs category
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 4.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 9.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.0% of net sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 4.0% of net sales |
| Technology fee | $173 |
| Transfer fee | $5K |
| Renewal fee | $35K |
| Inventory (initial) | $7K – $7K |
| Total fee load | 9.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 66% above the quick-service restaurants norm.
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Del Taco until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for 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.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$2.5M
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Del Taco 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 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.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for 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.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
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: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
- Avg gross sales
- $1.6M
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $1.5M
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- Average Sales, Franchised Restaurant Sales table, fiscal 2024 - 387 restaurants open at least 12 months, shown beside 2023 ($1,630,406), 2022, annualised 2021 and 2020
- Sample size
- 387 outlets
- vs category median 19 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $380K→$6.9MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 47 of the 2025 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 9 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · above
Compared against 781 Quick-Service Restaurants brands
Revenue is only 0.7x the investment. This means each unit may take 5+ years to recoup the initial outlay at typical margins.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $1.6M/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 0.7x. Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 9.0% — above the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.5%.
Disclosure
Transparency score 9/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System expanding at 53.2% CAGR over 3 years across 594 units — operators are staying and new ones are joining.
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 Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Del Taco Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants 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 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 594
- Opened
- 58
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 18
- Turnover rate
- 3.0%
- Company-owned
- 133
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 78%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +53.2%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +53.2%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Reacquired
- 9
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 4
- 0.01 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 18
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 1.6%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Ceased ops
- 0.2%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 11 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
9 current owners across 4 states; 9 former (terminated, transferred or not renewed) listed separately.
- CA 5
- AL 2
- FL 1
- UT 1
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 50
- Loan volume
- $46.7M
- Median loan
- $777K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 18.9%
- on 50 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 81.1%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 0.0%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 31
- Defaults
- 7
- Typical loan rate
- 6.6%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 10.8%
- brand above franchise avg ↑
- Jobs supported
- 1,428
- 3.1 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 10%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 73% went to startups / new businesses, 27% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in limited-service restaurants, franchised businesses charge off at 10.8% vs 10.0% for independents — franchising is associated with 8% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Del Taco charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Del Taco franchisees
Showing 3 of 31 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Del Taco from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 5.9%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 74%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.63%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $391K
- Lender concentration
- 10.0%
- Job velocity
- 3.1 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.7%
- NAICS 722513
- Jobs supported
- 1,428
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 10% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 5 | $5.5M | 33.3% |
| 2 | US Metro Bank | 4 | $4.5M | 0.0% |
| 3 | U.S. Bank, National Association | 3 | $426K | 33.3% |
| 4 | Zions Bank, A Division of | 3 | $2.8M | 0.0% |
| 5 | Citizens Business Bank National Association | 2 | $2.3M | 0.0% |
| 6 | Readycap Lending, LLC | 2 | $1.9M | 0.0% |
| 7 | Regions Bank | 2 | $888K | 0.0% |
| 8 | Sunwest Bank | 2 | $2.1M | 50.0% |
| 9 | Heritage Bank of Commerce | 2 | $1.6M | 0.0% |
| 10 | Bank of Hope | 2 | $1.3M | 100.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CACalifornia | 29 | 5 | 25.0% |
| GAGeorgia | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WAWashington | 3 | 2 | 66.7% |
| NCNorth Carolina | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NVNevada | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| UTUtah | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| AZArizona | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OHOhio | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OROregon | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 18.9% — 18% above the 16.0% national norm, i.e. higher lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Pending: Philippines franchise case (decided in company's favor, appeal possible); Garner v. JIB (breach of franchise agreements, jury awarded $8M but court granted post-trial motion for nothing); AJP Enterprises v. JIB (termination of 47 restaurants, initial stages). Concluded: Torrez v. Del Taco LLC ($50M wage class action settlement, final accounting pending); Castillo v. Del Taco LLC (data breach settled 2023).
Largest disclosed settlement: $50,000,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
Subject: an officer. An officer’s own bankruptcy or a company an officer ran, not the franchisor’s
GNC Holdings, Inc. Bankruptcy (United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 20- 11662). Prior to joining us and our affiliates, Ryan Ostrom, our Chief Brand Officer, was Chief Brand Officer and Steven Piano, our Chief People Officer, was Chief Human Resources Officer of GNC Holdings, LLC (formerly constituted as GNC Holdings, Inc.). While Mr. Ostrom and Mr.
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · KPMG LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 references audited consolidated financials of parent Jack in the Box Inc. and subsidiaries (FY ended Sept 29, 2024 and Oct 1, 2023); JIB guarantees Del Taco LLC obligations. The provided text contains only JIB's UNAUDITED condensed interim statements (16 weeks ended Jan 19, 2025); the audited annual income statement and auditor's report are not in this text. Balance-sheet figures (net worth, total assets, liabilities) are from the audited Sept 29, 2024 column. Annual revenue and net income not available in text.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: No
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
Score breakdown · what drove the 51 / 100 verdict
- 01HIGHSignificant litigation portfolio spanning wage violations, data breaches, franchise agreement disputes, and marketing fund mismanagement—indicating systemic operational and legal governance issues
- 02MINORMultiple lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising regarding ingredients creates reputational risk and potential regulatory exposure that could impact customer trust and sales
- 03MINORModest unit growth of 9.5% YoY combined with 594 total units suggests a mature/plateauing system; growth rate insufficient to indicate strong franchise model expansion
- 04HIGHLitigation related to alleged mismanagement of marketing funds raises questions about how the 5% royalty is being deployed and whether franchisees receive adequate return on mandatory contributions
- 05MEDHigh initial investment range ($1.5M–$3.3M) paired with average net income of $383K yields ROI of 11.5%–25.5%, which is acceptable but leaves limited margin for error given operational risks
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail12 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
Torrez v. Del Taco LLC.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2014-07-16 · Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, California (moved to Superior Court for the County of Alameda, coordinated proceeding) · CIVDS1410517; JCCP004904
“Torrez v. Del Taco LLC. On July 16, 2014, Timothy Tafoya, a former hourly employee, filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, California (Case No. CIVDS1410517), alleging violations of the wage provisions of California law.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On November 12, 2021, the Court granted class certification in this case and, thereafter, the parties reached a settlement of all claims, for a settlement amount of $50,000,000. The Court issued its final approval of the settlement on August 8, 2023.”
Concluded (1)
Castillo v. Del Taco LLC.
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2019-06-13 · Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California · 19STCV20629
“Castillo v. Del Taco LLC. On June 13, 2019, Miguel Castillo, an employee at one of our restaurants, filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California (Case No. 19STCV20629), alleging, among other things, that we committed unfair competition within the meaning of the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200,”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In June 2023, the parties reached a settlement of Mr. Castillo’s individual claims that was subsequently approved by the court. As a result of that settlement, the court dismissed the individual and class claims on November 30, 2023.”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (3)
AJP Enterprises, LLC and NHG Enterprises, LLC v. Jack in the Box Inc., Different Rules, LLC and Jack in the Box Properties LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · Jack in the Box Inc., Different Rules, LLC and Jack in the Box Properties LLC · filed 2025-03-27 · Washington Superior Court for King County · 25-2-09695-5 KNT
“AJP Enterprises, LLC and NHG Enterprises, LLC v. Jack in the Box Inc., Different Rules, LLC and Jack in the Box Properties LLC (Washington Superior Court for King County, Case No. 25-2-09695-5 KNT). On March 27, 2025, AJP Enterprises, LLC (“AJP”) and NHG Enterprises, LLC (“NHG”) filed a complaint against Jack in the Box Franchisor, JIB, and JIB Properties.”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Marilyn Garner, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Jack in the Box Inc.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · Jack in the Box Inc. and Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P. · filed 2017 · 48th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas · 048-29134017
“Marilyn Garner, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Jack in the Box Inc. (Cause No. 048-29134017, 48th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas). In April 2017, Jack in the Box Inc. (“JIB”) and Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P. (collectively the “JIB Parties”) filed a case against J&D Restaurant Group, LLC (“J&D”) and Bernard J.”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Foodmaker International Franchising Inc. and Foodmaker Inc. v. JNB Food Corporation and William Ang.
pendingBrought against a franchisee · Foodmaker International Franchising Inc. and Foodmaker Inc. · filed 1997 · Philippines Regional Trial Court · 97-1823
“Foodmaker International Franchising Inc. and Foodmaker Inc. v. JNB Food Corporation and William Ang. (Philippines Regional Trial Court, Case No. 97-1823). In 1997, Foodmaker International Franchising Inc. and Foodmaker Inc. filed an action against a former Jack in the Box franchisee in the”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (6)
Aslam Group, LLC, et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., et al.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2020-05-26 · San Diego Superior Court · 37-2020- 00015281
“Aslam Group, LLC, et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., et al. (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020- 00015281). On May 26, 2020, a franchisee filed suit against JIB for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The lawsuit was resolved through settlement in April 2021 and the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 11, 2021. Under the settlement agreement, among other things, JIB agreed to pay the franchisee $5,550,000 and to reduce the royalty fee for certain restaurants, and the parties exchanged mutual releases.”
Ibrahim Investment Corp., et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., et al.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2020-06-05 · San Diego Superior Court · 37- 2020-00019032
“Ibrahim Investment Corp., et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., et al. (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37- 2020-00019032). On June 5, 2020, a franchisee filed suit against JIB asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and specific performance.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Under the settlement agreement, among other things, JIB paid the franchisee $25,000, JIB modified certain rent amounts for various leases, JIB provided the franchisee an early termination right and reduced royalty fee for a Jack in the Box restaurant, the franchisee agreed to purchase from JIB a Jack in the Box location for”
Jack in the Box Inc., et al. v. San-Tex Restaurant, Inc., et al.
settledBrought against a franchisee · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2020-06-02 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division · 20-cv-00328
“Jack in the Box Inc., et al. v. San-Tex Restaurant, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, Case No. 20-cv-00328). On June 2, 2020, the company filed a complaint seeking to stop a franchisee from continuing to operate restaurants in the San Antonio market after the franchise and lease agreements for those”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was settled February 19, 2021. The settlement provided that the company would immediately reinstate 45 franchise agreements and franchise lease agreements in Texas (that were terminated in 2019) with the franchisee, and franchisee would complete certain repairs and restoration work on”
National JIB Franchisee Association, Inc. v. Jack in the Box Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2018-12-04 · San Diego Superior Court (filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 18STCV06066; transferred) · 37- 2019-00031267
“National JIB Franchisee Association, Inc. v. Jack in the Box Inc., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37- 2019-00031267. On December 4, 2018, the National JIB Franchisee Association, Inc. (“NFA”) filed suit against Jack in the Box Inc. (“JIB”) in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was settled November 10, 2020. The settlement provided that NFA and Company would dissolve the existing Franchisee Advisory Council and establish a Leadership Advisory Council with input from the NFA.”
San Diego County District Attorney investigation (Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment)
judgmentGovernment or regulatory action · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2017
“In November 2017, the San Diego County District Attorney’s office initiated an investigation into JIB’s policies and practices regarding the redemption for cash of gift cards with balances less than ten dollars. As a result of that investigation, on October 10, 2018, JIB entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment with the County.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Lauren Rehkopf v. Jack in the Box Inc.
settledThird-party plaintiff · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2014-10-03 · San Diego Superior Court · 37-2014-00033641-CU-BT-CTL
“Lauren Rehkopf v. Jack in the Box Inc. (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2014-00033641-CU-BT- CTL). On October 3, 2014, a class action complaint was filed claiming JIB engaged in unfair business practices by failing to allow a customer to exchange the remaining balance on her gift card for cash once the card held less than $10 in value.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was settled in July 2016. The settlement provided that JIB would pay plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $60,000, pay the named plaintiff $2,500,”
Status not stated in the filing (1)
Office of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri (consent decree No. 31899 Equity)
Government or regulatory action · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 1970 · Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri · No. 31899 Equity
“In May 1970 the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri notified JIB of its intention to initiate proceedings alleging that JIB had engaged in deceptive advertising by selling or offering for sale “hamburgers” which contained soy grits as an extender. JIB executed a consent decree dated May 28, 1970”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“(No. 31899 Equity), filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, which prohibits JIB from selling, offering for sale or advertising any substance as “hamburger” that is not fresh chopped or ground beef, with or without the addition of beef fat or seasoning, containing not more than 30% of fat, in the State of Missouri.” (page 16)
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 9.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 20 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 20 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory radius | 1 mi |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 2 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 30 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 1 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 2 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Orange County, California |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | CA |
| Litigation count | 12 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Pending: Philippines franchise case (decided in company's favor, appeal possible); Garner v. JIB (breach of franchise agreements, jury awarded $8M but court granted post-trial motion for nothing); AJP Enterprises v. JIB (termination of 47 restaurants, initial stages). Concluded: Torrez v. Del Taco LLC ($50M wage class action settlement, final accounting pending); Castillo v. Del Taco LLC (data breach settled 2023).
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 48 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 400 hrs
- Training location
- Nearest Certified Training Restaurant
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 3 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee with franchisor approval
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- ULTRABOS
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: ULTRABOS
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
18 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 Del Taco franchise?
The total investment to open a Del Taco franchise ranges from $1.5M – $3.3M, with an initial franchise fee of $35K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Del Taco franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Del Taco FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $1.6M. The median is $1.5M. Important context: Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Del Taco?
Del Taco is franchised by Del Taco LLC. Its parent company is Del Taco Holdings, Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Jack in the Box Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Del Taco 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 Del Taco FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Del Taco's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Del Taco has a charge-off rate of 18.9% across 50 loans, meaning 18.9% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many Del Taco franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Del Taco has 594 total units in the United States, including 461 franchised units and 133 company-owned units. 58 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Del Taco a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Del Taco as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 51 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 Del Taco, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants 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.