FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
OsteoStrong litigation history
What OsteoStrong 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 & 4 at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 6
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- $150K
- As stated in Item 3
- 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
One pending consolidated federal action in S.D. Tex. with former franchisees/regional developers (Simpson parties) alleging FDD misrepresentation/omission and breach of regional development agreements, with franchisor counterclaims for defamation/conspiracy (in discovery). Five past actions: a 2025 California DFPI consent order (franchisor paid $10,500 in penalties and agreed to refund affected investors over unregistered franchise broker agreements); Albrecht/JDG-OS (settled, $67,500 paid by insurer); Rhodes/OsteoFit international trademark/development disputes (settled, $125,000 paid by insurer); Partlow/Bio Strength (settled, $150,000 paid by insurer); and Baird/K&L Wellness (transferred and consolidated into the Simpson case).
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Multiple active litigation cases involving misrepresentation and breach of contract allegations from former franchisees and regional developers
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?