FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Fs8 litigation history

What Fs8 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: 5; 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

1 lawsuit involving FS8 officer (as defendant in F45 affiliate suit, later dismissed); 2 Washington State Consent Orders against F45 affiliate; 1 Michigan AG Settlement against F45 affiliate; 1 California Consent Order against F45 affiliate. No direct FS8 litigation.

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (4)

Settlement Agreement Between The Michigan Department of Attorney General and F45 Training, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · F45 Training Incorporated · Michigan Department of Attorney General · 2022-0357768-A
“… Case No.: 2022-0357768-A. Our affiliate, F45 Training Incorporated (“F45”) that offers “F45” franchises, entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Michigan Department of Attorney General (“DAG”), which was made effective August 24, 2023.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “F45 agreed to pay $95,000 to DAG which DAG will use to compensate F45 franchisees in DAG’s sole discretion.”
State of California Consent Order, File No.: 21265
concluded
Government or regulatory action · F45 Training Incorporated · Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California · 21265
“… Our affiliate, F45 Training Incorporated (“F45”) that offers “F45” franchises, signed a Consent Order with the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California (the “Commissioner”), which was entered effective October 17, 2023.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “F45, on behalf of itself and its agents and employees, agreed to (a) desist and refrain from violating Corporations Code section 31201; (b) cause certain persons to attend remedial California franchise law compliance education; (c) pay an administrative penalty of $152,500; and (d) offer rescission to certain franchisees in California that entered franchises during the specified time period.”
State of Washington Consent Order, Order No.: S-19-2681-19-CO01
concluded
Government or regulatory action · F45 Training Incorporated · Washington State Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division · S-19-2681-19-CO01
“… Our affiliate, F45 Training Incorporated (“F45”) that offers “F45” franchises, signed a Consent Order with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division (the “Division”), which was entered effective October 18, 2022.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
State of Washington Consent Order, Order No.: S-23-3534-23-CO-01
concluded
Government or regulatory action · F45 Training Incorporated · Washington State Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division · S-23-3534-23-CO-01
“… Our affiliate, F45 Training Incorporated (“F45”) that offers “F45” franchises, signed a Consent Order with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division (the “Division”) on November 20, 2023, and it became effective on December 4, 2023, when it was executed by the Division.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Concluded (1)

Functional HIIT Fitness, LLC v. F45 Training, Inc., Adam Gilchrist, Robert Deutsch, Marc Marano, Luke Armstrong, and Nick Abrahams
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Luke Armstrong (our Chief Revenue Officer; dismissed) and affiliate F45 Training Incorporated · filed 2022-01-26 · United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · 5:22-cv-10168-FKB-KGA
“… Case No. 5:22-cv-10168-FKB-KGA (E.D. Mich.).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

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

Multiple litigation matters and consent orders involving F45 affiliates indicate franchise disclosure/compliance issues
Officer (Luke Armstrong) confidential settlement raises governance and transparency concerns

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 Fs8 verdict Risk analysis on the brand page