Great American Cookies Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $341K – $463K
- Disclosed sales
- $540K
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 4.7%
- on 89 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Great American Cookies is a dessert franchise baking fresh cookies, brownies, and its signature Cookie Cakes. Franchisees run mall kiosks and storefronts managing baking, decorating, and quick service.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES franchise requires a total initial investment of $341K – $463K, including a $25K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $540K[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 4.7% charge-off rate across 89 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), 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
- $341K – $463K
- 16th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $540K
- Net sales1st pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 25th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 395
- 36th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- 4.7%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Full-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Full-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 $341K – $463K including a $25K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $540K/year (median $510K).
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 83/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 4.7% across 89 loans (well below the franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHNegative: net -5 franchised outlets in the latest year (18 opened, 23 closed) (Item 20).
- FLAGBankruptcy history disclosed in the FDD. Review Item 4 for details before proceeding.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- GAC Franchising, LLC
- Parent company
- GAC Franchise Brands, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- FAT Brands, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2025 FDD
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer and President of FAT Brands, Inc.
- Andrew A. Wiederhorn
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 9720 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500, Beverly Hills, California 90212
- Auditor
- Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $12.9M
- vs $12.9M prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 10
12 other brands on this site name FAT Brands, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Buffalo’s CafeB
- Elevation BurgerC
- FatburgerD
- Fazoli'sC
- HOT DOG ON A STICKB
- Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos WingsB
- Johnny RocketsD
- Marble Slab CreameryC
- Native Grill and WingsB
- PretzelmakerB
- Round Table PizzaB
- Twin PeaksA
Portfolio: FAT Brands
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
- Andrew A. Wiederhorn
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 2008
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 32
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 41% below the typical full-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $25K | $25K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $8K | $12K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $308K | $426K |
| Total initial investment | $341K | $463K |
Source: GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES 2025 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $341K – $463K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $8K – $12K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $25K – $25K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 2.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 8.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of net sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of net sales |
| Technology fee | $840 |
| Transfer fee | $10K |
| Renewal fee | $8K |
| Inventory (initial) | $5K – $10K |
| Total fee load | 8.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 66% below the full-service restaurants norm.
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
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 GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES 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
$412K
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 GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES 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 as net sales, not gross sales
- Avg gross sales
- $540K
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $510K
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- net sales
- Sample size
- 256 outlets
- vs category median 18 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $70K→$1.4MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 88 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
- 7 / 10
- vs category median 3 / 10 · above
Compared against 801 Full-Service Restaurants brands
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 $540K/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 1.3x.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 8.0% (near the Full-Service Restaurants median).
Disclosure
Transparency score 7/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System roughly stable (-0.6% 3-year CAGR) with 395 units.
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 Full-Service Restaurants medians
How Great American Cookies Compares
Category median of published Full-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
- 395
- Opened
- 18
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 23
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 5.8%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +1.1%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -0.6%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 0
- Transferred
- 17
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Projected new
- 34
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 26 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
332 current owners across 26 states.
- TX 107
- GA 43
- LA 26
- TN 23
- FL 20
- AL 18
- OH 12
- SC 12
- KY 9
- MS 8
- NC 8
- AR 7
- +14 more states
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
- 89
- Loan volume
- $26.9M
- Median loan
- $229K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 4.7%
- on 89 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)
- 95.3%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 0.0%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 48
- Defaults
- 3
- Typical loan rate
- 6.8%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 10.6%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 1,180
- 4.4 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 7%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 58% went to startups / new businesses, 42% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars, franchised businesses charge off at 10.6% vs 8.9% for independents — franchising is associated with 19% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Great American Cookies charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Great American Cookies franchisees
Showing 3 of 48 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 Great American Cookies from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 1.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 75%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.76%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $93K
- Lender concentration
- 6.7%
- Job velocity
- 4.4 per $100K
- Startup risk premium
- 0.0pp
- NAICS benchmark
- 7.0%
- NAICS 722515
- Jobs supported
- 1,180
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 7% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 6 | $960K | 0.0% |
| 2 | The Huntington National Bank | 6 | $2.4M | 0.0% |
| 3 | First Financial Bank | 6 | $1.6M | 0.0% |
| 4 | Simmons Bank | 5 | $769K | 0.0% |
| 5 | Renasant Bank | 5 | $1.8M | 0.0% |
| 6 | Readycap Lending, LLC | 4 | $604K | 25.0% |
| 7 | Austin Bank Texas National Association | 3 | $1.9M | 0.0% |
| 8 | Fifth Third Bank | 3 | $557K | 0.0% |
| 9 | Truist Bank | 3 | $642K | 0.0% |
| 10 | The Central Trust Bank | 2 | $203K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| GAGeorgia | 16 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 16 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OHOhio | 14 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MOMissouri | 9 | 1 | 14.3% |
| LALouisiana | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 4 | 1 | 25.0% |
| IAIowa | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TNTennessee | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MNMinnesota | 2 | 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 4.7% — 71% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower 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
High-risk franchise investment in declining system with active litigation, undisclosed profitability metrics, no territory protection, and regulatory compliance violations by parent company.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Pending: (1) Zhang v. Yalla Mediterranean/FAT Brands - arbitration re franchise fraud allegations, seeking $745K+; (2) In re FAT Brands Securities Litigation (consolidated Matthews/Chipman) - securities class action, settled for $2.5M cash + $0.5M stock. Concluded: (3) Shahi v. FBNA - dismissed Oct 2021; (4) P&K v. Buffalo's Franchise - dismissed Feb 2019; (5) Rojany/Vignola v. FAT Brands - settled for $50K and $75K respectively.
Largest disclosed settlement: $2,500,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
Subject: the company or an affiliate. Disclosed (Item 4 covers the last 10 years)
On January 25, 2026, Parent (located at 9720 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500, Beverly Hills, California 90212), Twin Hospitality Group Inc. (located at 5151 Belt Line Road, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75254) and their subsidiary entities, including us and our affiliates (collectively, the “FAT Group”), filed voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Audited consolidated total revenue for FY ended Dec 26, 2021 (in thousands): royalty revenue $8,311K, franchise revenue $337K, advertising revenue $1,938K, vendor rebate revenue $95K = $10,681K total. Statements for GAC Franchising, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of FAT Brands GFG Royalty I, LLC.
ⓘ 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: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 83 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORDeclining unit count (-1.2% YoY) indicates contracting franchise system with 395 units and negative momentum
- 02MINORMultiple active securities class action lawsuits against parent FAT Brands and officers raise governance and transparency concerns
- 03MEDNet income not disclosed in FDD despite $539,902 average revenue, preventing accurate ROI calculation and profitability verification
- 04MINORZero territory protection exposes franchisees to direct competition from other GAC locations and parent company cannibalization
- 05MINORState regulatory actions against affiliates for registration and financial reporting inaccuracies suggest systemic compliance issues
- 06MINOR6% royalty on declining average revenues ($539,902) may not support franchisor infrastructure as system contracts
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail8 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (1)
Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen
pendingThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands, Inc. ('FAT', the franchisor's parent) and officers Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen · filed 2024-06-07 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA
“Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA) On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in FAT, filed a putative class action lawsuit against”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (7)
Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands, Inc. and officers Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick · filed 2022-03-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:22-cv-01820
“Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820). On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Robert J. Matthews, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company,”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In August 2022, after mediation the parties agreed to settle the litigation. Pursuant to the settlement, FAT agreed to pay on behalf of the defendants $2,500,000 in cash and $500,000 in Class A common stock of FAT to the class plaintiffs, the plaintiffs released all claims against the defendants, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in February 2023.”
Ieman Shahi vs. Fatburger North America, Inc., Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn, et al
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Fatburger North America, Inc. (Andrew A. Wiederhorn and Taylor A. Wiederhorn dismissed January 27, 2021) · filed 2019-07-08 · Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · 19STCV23772
“Ieman Shahi vs. Fatburger North America, Inc., Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn, et al, Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 19STCV23772 (July 8, 2019). On July 8, 2019, Ieman Shahi (“Shahi”) filed a complaint against FBNA as well as Andrew A. Wiederhorn and Taylor A. Wiederhorn.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“FBNA filed a cross complaint on April 13, 2020 asserting that Shahi breached the international Multi- Unit Restaurant Agreement. The case was dismissed on October 21, 2021.”
Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands Inc., its officers and directors (the 'Original Defendants') · filed 2018-08-24 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:18-cv-07469
“Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469. On August 24, 2018, the Original Defendants were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA,”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 25, 2020, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which lead plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $75,000.”
Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands Inc., its officers and directors (the 'Original Defendants') · filed 2018-06-07 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC708539
“Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539, filed on June 7, 2018 against FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On January 6, 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to dismiss his individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $50,000.”
P&K Food Market, Inc. vs. Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, Andy Wiederhorn et al.
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Buffalo's Franchise Concepts, Inc. (with Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis and Andy Wiederhorn) · filed 2018-07-13 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · 18STLC09534
“On July 13, 2018, P&K Food Market, Inc. (“P&K”) filed a complaint against Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, and Andy Wiederhorn for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Unlawful Offer and Sale of Franchise By Means of Untrue Statements or Omissions of Material Fact”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was dismissed on February 13, 2019.”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. (FBNA) · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2022-00034
“This matter involves allegations by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising that Fatburger North America, Inc., offered and sold 3 Virginia franchises at a time when it was not effectively registered in Virginia between December 2020 through August 2021.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“FBNA reached a settlement in principle in May 2023, without admitting or denying the allegations, and agreed: (a) to offer the affected franchisees an opportunity to rescind their franchises; (b) to pay $27,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia;”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (No. SEC-2022-0042)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. (FBNA) · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2022-0042
“Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-0042, Settlement Order entered February 21, 2025, Final Order entered April 23, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Without admitting or denying the allegations, FBNA made an offer of settlement in the amount of Five thousand Dollars ($5,000) in civil penalty and Five Hundred Dollars ($500) to defray the costs of investigation. The Division accepted the settlement and entered the final order.” (page 21)
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 8.0% 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 | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 5 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 14 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 5 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Arbitration location | Atlanta, Georgia (mediation required before litigation) |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | DE |
| Litigation count | 8 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Pending: (1) Zhang v. Yalla Mediterranean/FAT Brands - arbitration re franchise fraud allegations, seeking $745K+; (2) In re FAT Brands Securities Litigation (consolidated Matthews/Chipman) - securities class action, settled for $2.5M cash + $0.5M stock. Concluded: (3) Shahi v. FBNA - dismissed Oct 2021; (4) P&K v. Buffalo's Franchise - dismissed Feb 2019; (5) Rojany/Vignola v. FAT Brands - settled for $50K and $75K respectively.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 9 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 30 hrs
- Training location
- Atlanta, Georgia area (certified training store) and virtual webinar for orientation
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 7 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee selects, franchisor approves
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
332 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 GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES franchise?
The total investment to open a GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES franchise ranges from $341K – $463K, with an initial franchise fee of $25K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $540K. The median is $510K. Important context: Reported as net sales, not gross sales. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES?
GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES is franchised by GAC Franchising, LLC. Its parent company is GAC Franchise Brands, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is FAT Brands, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES 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 GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES has a charge-off rate of 4.7% across 89 loans, meaning 4.7% 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 GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES has 395 total units in the United States, including 395 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 18 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 83 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 GREAT AMERICAN COOKIES, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Full-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Full-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.