B65/100FDD 2025
Little Diggers — Litigation & Risk
Education - Children's Programs · 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
65 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
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
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
Non-compete
3 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
Ohio
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 65/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MINOROnly 2 existing units with unknown growth trajectory suggests minimal system validation and high execution risk
- 02HIGHNo Item 19 (Going Concern: False) means franchisor has not provided audited financial performance representations to validate the $77,293 average net income claim
- 03MINORMinimum royalty of $500/week ($26,000/year) represents 34% of average net income, creating negative cash flow risk for underperforming locations
- 04MINORHigh initial investment range ($216,600–$482,150) relative to average net income (35.6% ROI best case) with 10-year breakeven timeline
- 05MINORMicro-franchisee base (2 units) creates survivorship bias—no data on failed or struggling locations
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.