B60/100FDD 2025
Jung Kwan Jang — Litigation & Risk
Health & Wellness - Other · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5
Lower Risk
No litigation cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.
Source: FDD Items 3–5
FDD Items 3 & 4
Litigation Metrics
Cases disclosed
0
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
60 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
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 60/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MINORNo Item 19 financial disclosure — cannot verify average unit economics or profitability claims
- 02MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk from other franchisees and company-owned locations
- 03MINORSlow unit growth of 5.9% YoY suggests market saturation or franchisee satisfaction issues
- 04MINORWide investment range ($111k-$316k) indicates unclear cost structure and unpredictable startup expenses
- 05MINORShort 3-year term limits long-term ROI potential and creates renewal uncertainty
- 06HIGHGoing Concern flag is FALSE but absence of positive disclosure raises transparency concerns
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.