Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Honest1 Auto Care logo
AStrongest tier63/100FDD 2024

Honest1 Auto Care: Litigation & Risk

Automotive · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

Moderate: Review

2 cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.

Source: FDD Items 3–5

FDD Items 3 & 4

Litigation Metrics

Cases disclosed
2
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Verdict score
63 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite · higher is better
Rating
A
A / B / C / D / F verdict grade

7(a) FOIA data · FY2020–present

SBA Loan Performance

Aggregated from public SBA 7(a) loan disclosures. Charge-off rate is the share of loans that were charged off or settled for less than the full balance.

Total 7(a) loans
56
Government-backed loans issued
Charge-off rate
9.5%
vs 16% franchise average
5-yr charge-off rate
13.3%
Defaults
4 loans
Loans charged off or defaulted
Total loan volume
$25.3M
Avg loan size
$452K
Participating lenders
27

FDD Items 5, 6 & 17: What You Give Up

Contract Risk Indicators

Mandatory arbitration
Not required
You retain the right to sue in court
Jury trial waiver
Not waived
Non-compete
2 yrs
Post-termination restriction on similar businesses
Franchisor can compete
No
Right of first refusal
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
FL
State whose law governs disputes. Relevant if you're not based there

Extracted from FDD Item 3

Litigation Detail

Case 1 (Franchisor as plaintiff): H-1 Auto Care LLC v. Balhar Lasher et al. (NJ federal court, filed 2021) - breach of franchise agreements, trademark infringement, trade secret violations against former franchisees who opened competing centers. Case 2 (Franchisor as defendant): Charles D. Fasnacht III et al. v. H-1 Auto Care LLC (AAA arbitration, filed 2024) - former Region Developers claim wrongful termination of Region Developer Agreements.

What drove the 63/100 verdict

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01MINORUnit count declining 1.6% YoY suggests system contraction and potential market saturation or franchisee dissatisfaction
  2. 02MINORNo Net Income disclosure (Item 19) prevents validation of actual profitability claims; average revenue of $1.49M may not translate to promised returns
  3. 03HIGHActive litigation on two fronts (franchisor lawsuit + regional developer arbitration with counterclaim) indicates operational/contractual friction and potential governance issues
  4. 04MINORHigh investment range ($255K-$1.24M) with 20-year commitment creates long payback exposure if unit economics deteriorate
  5. 05MINOR6% royalty on gross sales (not net) means franchisees pay regardless of profitability, amplifying risk during economic downturns
  6. 06HIGHGoing Concern status = False suggests potential financial stress at corporate level, raising sustainability questions

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.