FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Jack in the Box litigation history

What Jack in the Box 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: 12; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): Disclosed; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Pending: Philippines case (won at trial, concluded); Marilyn Garner trustee (appellate ruling in company favor, TX Supreme Court petition pending); AJP/NHG (WA, March 2025); Gulf Coast Jacks (CA, Dec 2025); JIB v Wazny/Chopra (marketing fee collection). Concluded: Rehkopf gift card (settled 2016); NFA (settled 2020); San-Tex Restaurant (settled 2021); Aslam Group (settled 2021, JIB paid $5.55M); Ibrahim Investment Corp (settled 2021, JIB paid $25K).

Item 3 (litigation) · 12 matters disclosed · 3 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Pending (2)

AJP Enterprises, LLC and NHG Enterprises, LLC v. Jack in the Box Inc., Different Rules, LLC and Jack in the Box Properties LLC
pending
filed 2025-03-27 · Washington Superior Court for King County · 25-2-09695-5 KNT
“… (Washington Superior Court for King County, Case No.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case remains in the pleading stage, with some discovery beginnin”
Gulf Coast Jacks, Inc. and Umar Ibrahim v. Jack in the Box Inc., Different Rules LLC, and Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P.
pending
filed 2025-12-15 · San Diego Superior Court · 25CU066703C
“… (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 25CU066703C). On”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Complaint has not been served on the Company but purports to seek unspecified damages” (page 19)

Concluded (1)

Foodmaker International Franchising Inc. and Foodmaker Inc. v JNB Food Corporation and William Ang
concluded
Brought by the franchisor · Foodmaker International Franchising Inc.; Foodmaker Inc. · filed 1997 · Philippines Regional Trial Court · 97-1823
“… (Philippines Regional Trial Court, Case No. 97-1823). In 1997”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “No appeal was taken, and Company believes this matter is concluded. Ma”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

Marilyn Garner, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Jack in the Box Inc.
pending
Jack in the Box Inc.; Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P. · filed 2019-04-17 · 48th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas · 048-29134017
“… (Cause No. 048- 29134017, 48th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas). In April”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Plaintiff’s petition for review by the Texas Supreme Court is currently pending.” (page 18)
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- J&D Restaurant Group, LLC Chapter 7 petition (Franchisee Bankruptcy Filing)
  concluded
  Brought by a third party · names an affiliate · J&D Restaurant Group, LLC (former franchisee) · filed 2017-05-19 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division · 17-42099
  “On May 19, 2017, J&D filed a Chapter 7 petition (Case No. 17-42099) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Wor”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Concluded (6)

Aslam Group, LLC, et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., et al.
concluded
Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2020-05-26 · San Diego Superior Court · 37-2020-00015281
“… (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020-00015281). On May 26, 2020, a franchisee filed su”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The lawsuit was resolved through settlement in April 2021 and the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 11, 2021. Und”
Ibrahim Investment Corp., et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., et al.
concluded
Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2020-06-05 · San Diego Superior Court · 37-2020-00019032
“… (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020-00019032). On June 5, 2020, a franchisee”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The lawsuit was resolved through settlement in April 2021 an” (page 21)
Jack in the Box Inc., et al. v. San-Tex Restaurant, Inc., et al.
concluded
Brought by the franchisor · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2020-06-02 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division · 20-cv-00328
“… (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, Case No. 20-cv-00”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was settled February 19, 2021.”
National JIB Franchisee Association, Inc. v. Jack in the Box Inc.
concluded
Jack in the Box Inc.; Different Rules, LLC · filed 2018-12-04 · San Diego Superior Court · 37-2019-00031267
“… San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2019-00031267. On December 4, 2018, the Natio”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was settled November 10, 2020.”
San Diego County District Attorney gift card redemption investigation - Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2017 · Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (San Diego County District Attorney)
“In November 2017, the San Diego County District Attorney’s office initiated an investigation into JIB’s policies and practices regarding the redemption for cash of gift cards with balances l”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “on October 10, 2018, JIB entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment with the County. The”
Lauren Rehkopf v. Jack in the Box Inc.
concluded
Brought by a third party · Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 2014-10-03 · San Diego Superior Court · 37-2014-00033641-CU-BT-CTL
“… (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37- 2014-00033641-CU-BT-CTL). On October 3, 2014, a class action complaint”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment on July 3, 2017. N”

Status not stated in the filing (2)

Missouri Attorney General deceptive advertising consent decree (soy grits in “hamburger”)
Jack in the Box Inc. · filed 1970 · Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri · No. 31899 Equity
“In May 1970 the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri notified JIB of its intention to initiate proceedings alleging that JIB had engaged in deceptive advertising by sellin”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Jack in the Box Inc. v. Steve Wazny and Ajay Chopra (marketing fee collection suit filed against franchisees)
Brought by the franchisor · Jack in the Box Inc. · San Diego Superior Court · 25CU069175C
“Marketing fee collection suits filed against franchisees: Jack in the Box Inc. v. Steve Wazny and Ajay Chopra (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 25CU”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 12 Item 3 discloses agree.

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.

Disclosed in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 4: bankruptcy

Officer disclosure only: Ryan Ostrom (Chief Brand Officer) and Steven Piano (Chief People Officer) were employees of GNC Holdings, Inc. when it filed Chapter 11 on June 23, 2020. GNC Holdings is unrelated to the franchisor.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Multiple active litigation cases across multiple states (Philippines, Texas, Washington) plus historical pattern of franchisee disputes suggests systemic franchisor-franchisee relationship issues
Heavy litigation history including class actions (gift cards), franchisee association suits, and multi-state disputes suggests pattern of enforcement/transparency problems

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 Jack in the Box verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls