B65/100FDD 2024
Egoscue — Litigation & Risk
Health & Wellness - Other · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5
Lower Risk
No litigation cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.
Source: FDD Items 3–5
FDD Items 3 & 4
Litigation Metrics
Cases disclosed
0
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
65 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
FDD Items 5, 6 & 17 — what you give up
Contract Risk Indicators
Mandatory arbitration
Required
Disputes resolved outside court — limits your legal options
Jury trial waiver
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
Non-compete
2 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
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
Utah
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 65/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MEDNo Item 19 (Average Unit Volume) disclosed — impossible to assess ROI on $163.5K-$255.5K investment
- 02MEDOnly 24 units system-wide indicates very small, unproven franchise model with limited track record
- 03MINORNo territory protection creates direct competition risk from other franchisees or company-owned locations
- 04MINORHigh royalty structure (greater of $2,500/mo floor or 6% of sales) with unclear minimum thresholds makes cash flow unpredictable
- 05MINOR5-year term is shorter than industry standard (10 years typical), requiring renegotiation sooner
- 06MEDZero disclosed unit growth data raises questions about system stagnation or attrition
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.