FranchiseVerdict
HOT DOG ON A STICK logo
A47/100FDD 2023

Hot Dog On A Stick — Litigation & Risk

Food & Beverage - Quick Service · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

Elevated Risk

7 cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.

Source: FDD Items 3–5

FDD Items 3 & 4

Litigation Metrics

Cases disclosed
7
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
47 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
STRONG
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID

7(a) FOIA data · FY2020–present

SBA Loan Performance

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

Total 7(a) loans
2
Government-backed loans issued
Default rate
100.0%
vs <3% typical · system-wide
5-yr default rate
—
Defaults
2 loans
Loans charged off or defaulted
Total loan volume
$190K
Avg loan size
$95K
Participating lenders
1

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
California
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there

What drove the 47/100 rating

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01MINORDeclining unit count (50 units, -5.9% YoY) indicates system contraction and potential franchisee dissatisfaction
  2. 02HIGHParent company FAT Brands facing active SEC securities class action litigation regarding financial reporting integrity
  3. 03MEDNo Item 19 (Average Unit Volume) disclosed — revenue figures ($504,890 avg) lack verification and profitability context is hidden
  4. 04MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk; franchisees can cannibalize each other's sales
  5. 05HIGHHigh litigation history including development fee disputes and restaurant sale conflicts suggests franchisor relationship issues
  6. 06MED6% royalty on $504,890 avg revenue ($30,293/year) combined with undisclosed net income makes ROI on $331,500-$439,000 investment opaque
  7. 07MED15-year term is lengthy given system decline and no protected exclusivity
  8. 08MINORRoyalty structure lacks transparency — 'total net sales' definition not clarified (gross vs. after refunds/discounts?)

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.