Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
MOXIE SALON & BEAUTY BAR logo
AStrongest tier84/100FDD 2025

Moxie Salon & Beauty Bar: Litigation & Risk

Personal Care & Beauty · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

Moderate: Review

1 case disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.

Source: FDD Items 3–5

FDD Items 3 & 4

Litigation Metrics

Cases disclosed
1
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Verdict score
84 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite · higher is better
Rating
A
A / B / C / D / F verdict grade

7(a) FOIA data · FY2020–present

SBA Loan Performance

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

Total 7(a) loans
10
Government-backed loans issued
Charge-off rate
0.0%
vs 16% franchise average
5-yr charge-off rate
N/A
Defaults
0 loans
Loans charged off or defaulted
Total loan volume
$2.5M
Avg loan size
$249K
Participating lenders
4

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
Not waived
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
NJ
State whose law governs disputes. Relevant if you're not based there

Extracted from FDD Item 3

Litigation Detail

Moxie BBB Franchising LLC v. Jennifer Caluri, JC Consulting II, Inc., and JC Marketing Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, No. BER-L-003912-24) — suit to enforce covenant-not-to-compete and non-solicitation.

What drove the 84/100 verdict

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01HIGHGoing Concern status is FALSE — indicates financial instability or accounting irregularities at corporate level
  2. 02HIGHActive litigation over non-compete/non-solicitation suggests franchisee disputes and potential enforcement challenges
  3. 03MINORNo net income disclosure (Item 19) prevents ROI validation — 17.6% YoY growth may mask profitability problems
  4. 04MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk between franchisees and potential cannibalization
  5. 05MINORHigh initial investment ($225,900–$464,000) combined with 6% royalty on $818K avg revenue leaves thin margin for error
  6. 06MINORModest unit count (25 locations) with only 4-unit net growth YoY suggests slower scaling than claimed

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.