FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Merry Maids litigation history
What Merry Maids disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 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
- 3
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- None stated
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- None
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2025
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
Three affiliate actions disclosed: (1) California v. Arby's Restaurant Group re no-poaching provisions (settled 2019); (2) California v. Dunkin' Brands re no-poaching provisions (settled 2019); (3) New York v. Dunkin' Brands re credential-stuffing data breaches (consent order 2020, $650,000 penalty). No litigation against Merry Maids SPE LLC directly required to be disclosed.
Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (3)
New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“… N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 2026, including precautions and response measures for credential-stuffing attacks.”
The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“… California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“… California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
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.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Parent company litigation involving affiliate brands (no-poaching, cybersecurity) signals corporate governance and legal exposure risks
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?