FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Dunkin Donuts litigation history

What Dunkin Donuts 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: 19; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $110K; As stated in Item 3

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

Item 3 discloses 4 pending cases (Minda's Donuts wrongful-termination suit in NH; Dunkin'/BR v. Shree Krishna Donuts trademark/breach counterclaim in NJ; multiple related Phoenix Food (Pvt) Ltd. Pakistan suits over a terminated master development agreement; Fahrad Salari Lak bakery-supply dispute in PA dating to 2011), 3 arbitration/IP matters commenced by Dunkin' against franchisees/infringers, and numerous concluded matters (Shetty discrimination suit, Airport Mart breach/fraud suit, Coffee & Brands Sweden AB arbitration, Newburyport Donuts arbitration, California and New York AG actions re no-poaching provisions and data-breach notification respectively, Ram Donuts trademark/breach litigation settled for $110,000). No bankruptcy disclosed.

Item 3 (litigation) · 19 matters disclosed · 7 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (7)

Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC and Baskin Robbins Franchising LLC v. Shree Krishna Donuts, Inc. and Dilruba Choudhury
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2026-01-16 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:26-cv-00548-MCA-AME
“… (Case No. 2:26-cv-00548-MCA-AME), U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed on January 16, 2026. We (together with our affiliate BR) filed a Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against a franchisee (and its guarantor/owner)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Defendants/counter-plaintiffs also seek dismissal of our and BR’s claims. This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation, and we and BR intend to vigorously defend against the counterclaims.” (page 27)
Minda’s Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2026-01-16 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1:26-cv-00016-TSM
“… (Case No. 1:26-cv-00016-TSM), U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, filed on January 16, 2026. The plaintiff is a current multi-unit franchisee who previously operated a Dunkin’ Restaurant at the Colby Corner shopping center in East Hampstead, New Hampshire under a franchise agreement with us.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation, and our Answer is currently due on April 3, 2026.”
Phoenix Foods (Pvt) Limited v Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC and DD IP Holder LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-11-25 · Civil Judge/Special Court Admin For Commercial Cases, Lahore (Pakistan) · Civil Suit 43030 of 2024
“… (Civil Judge/Special Court Admin For Commercial Cases, Lahore, Civil Suit 43030 of 2024, filed on November 25, 2024). In this case, the plaintiff challenged the termination of the MUDFA and plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of US$5,000,000.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The plaintiff has not filed a demand for arbitration or an appeal of the court’s order staying this case. This case remains stayed.”
Phoenix Foods (Pvt) Limited v Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC and DD IP Holder LLC (No. Civil Suit 43710 of 2024)
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-11-28 · Civil Judge/Special Court Admin For Commercial Cases, Lahore (Pakistan) · Civil Suit 43710 of 2024
“Phoenix Foods (Pvt) Limited v Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC and DD IP Holder LLC (Civil Judge/ Special Court Admin For Commercial Cases, Lahore, Civil Suit 43710 of 2024, filed on November 28, 2024). In this case, the plaintiff challenged the termination of the MUDFA and seeks a declaration from the court that the MUDFA is valid until 2036.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On July 16, 2025, the court entered an order granting us our application and stayed the case.”
DD IP Holder LLC and Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC v Phoenix Foods (Pvt) Limited
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2023 · Intellectual Property Tribunal, Lahore, Pakistan · Suit No. 99/IPT/2023 (appeal: Lahore High Court FAO 64740 of 2025)
“… (Intellectual Property Tribunal, Lahore, Pakistan, Suit No. 99/IPT/2023, filed in 2023). We and our affiliate brought this case against Phoenix for trademark infringement relating to two Dunkin’ Restaurants in Pakistan that Phoenix continued to operate under our (or our affiliate’s) trademarks”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 23, 2025, the IP Tribunal granted our motion for an injunction against Phoenix. Phoenix then filed an appeal, which is now pending under the following case caption:”
Phoenix Food (Pvt) Limited v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC and DD IP Holder LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-07-25 · Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore (Pakistan) · Suit No. 33938 of 2023
“… (Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore; Suit No. 33938 of 2023; filed July 25, 2023). A Dunkin’® franchisee in Pakistan, Phoenix Food (Pvt) Limited, (“Phoenix”), filed this action in Pakistan alleging breach of contract due to our decision not to extend the expired term”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “on December 4, 2024, the court entered an order granting us our application and staying the case.”
Fahrad Salari Lak, Lock Bakeries, Incorporated and F and J Holdings, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC, et al.
pending
filed 2011-09-28 · Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania · GD 09 13755
“… (Case No. GD 09 13755), Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, filed on September 28, 2011. This dispute involves contracts to supply bakery products to a Dunkin’ network of restaurants in the Pittsburgh market.”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “No trial date has been set. Defendants deny the claims alleged by Fahrad Plaintiffs and intend to vigorously defend the case.”

Concluded (4)

Ram Donuts Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC, et al.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2022-09-15 · United States District Court for the District of Arizona (removed from Pima County, Arizona state court) · 22-CV-00433-TUC-LCK and 22-CV-0455-TUC-JCH (consolidated)
“… (United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case Nos. 22-CV-00433-TUC-LCK and 22-CV-0455-TUC-JCH). On September 15, 2022, a terminated franchisee, Ram Donuts, Inc. (“Ram Donuts”) filed a complaint in Pima County, Arizona state court against us and BR alleging breach of the franchise agreements,”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 29, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release whereby the Dunkin’ and Baskin-Robbins entities agreed to pay Ram Donuts $110,000 in exchange for mutual releases and dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.”
Newburyport Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC, et al.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-03-11 · American Arbitration Association · 01-19-0000-7393
“… (Case No. 01-19-0000-7393), American Arbitration Association, filed on March 11, 2019. Newburyport Donuts, Inc. (“Newberry”) contended that the defendants rejected their proposal for the development of a new Dunkin’ restaurant”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On July 23, 2020, the parties agreed to settle all of their claims without any admission of liability on defendants’ part and the matter is now closed.”
Airport Mart, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2018-01-09 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · 7:18-cv-00170
“… (Case No. 7:18-cv-00170) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on January 9, 2018. Airport Mart, Inc. (“Airport Plaintiff”) was a former Dunkin’ franchisee that brought suit against us regarding the development, operation, and termination of the franchise agreement”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Following that ruling, the case was settled for a nominal amount on February 10, 2020, without any admission of liability on our part and the matter is now closed.”
Priti Shetty v. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC, et al.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-02-17 · U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · 3:15-cv-02664
“… (Case No. 3:15-cv-02664), U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed on February 17, 2015. Priti Shetty (“Shetty Plaintiff”), a former Dunkin’ franchisee, and two business partners entered into a Store Development”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was settled on February 23, 2017, with the entire settlement amount paid by Dunkin’s insurance carrier and with no admission of liability by defendants.” (page 29)

Status not stated in the filing (2)

Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC v. Tan Po Lian and PT Dunkindo Lestari
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-10-07 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0005-1763
“Litigation Commenced by Us in the Past Fiscal Year Against Franchisees Breach of Contract and Trademark Infringement Claims Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC v. Tan Po Lian and PT Dunkindo Lestari (American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-25-0005-1763, filed October 7, 2025).”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC v. Van der Valk Participaties B.V.
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-03-03 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0001-2138
“… (American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-25-0001-2138, filed March 3, 2025).”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (1)

The People of the State of New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (one of the franchisor's parent companies per Item 1) · filed 2019-09-26 · New York Supreme Court · Index No. 451787/2019
“… (Index No., 451787/2019), New York Supreme Court, filed on September 26, 2019. The NY State Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against Dunkin’ Brands related to credential stuffing attacks during 2015 and 2018”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 22, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement under which Dunkin’ Brands agreed to communicate with certain DD Perks customers who lived in New York, to take certain data security measures and adopt certain investigative procedures regarding data security issues and pay the New York Attorney General’s Office $650,000 in penalties and costs.” (page 31)

Status not stated in the filing (1)

DD IP Holder LLC v Phoenix Foods (Pvt) Limited (principal defendant) and Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC (proforma defendant under local law)
Brought against a franchisee · DD IP Holder LLC (Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC named as proforma defendant) · filed 2025 · Intellectual Property Tribunal, Lahore · 295/IPT/2025
“… (Intellectual Property Tribunal, Lahore, Suit no. 295/IPT/2025, filed November 2025).”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

This list shows 15 of the 19 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.

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.

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 Dunkin Donuts verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls