Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $1.2M – $3.9M
- Disclosed sales
- $2.0M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 10.4%
- on 332 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Popeyes is a quick-service chain built on Louisiana-style fried chicken, its viral chicken sandwich, and Cajun sides. Franchisees operate drive-thru and dine-in restaurants managing staffing, food prep, and costs under RBI standards.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchise requires a total initial investment of $1.2M – $3.9M, including a $13K – $50K franchise fee and an ongoing 5.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $2.0M[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 10.4% charge-off rate across 332 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2025 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - a newer filing may exist
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored8 of 8 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $1.2M – $3.9M
- 95th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $2.0M
- 32nd pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- 12th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 3,177
- 95th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- 10.4%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $1.2M – $3.9M including a $50K franchise fee, 5.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $2.0M/year (median $1.9M), with an estimated 7% cash-on-cash return (based on EBITDA $3).
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 73/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 10.4% across 332 loans (above the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHPositive: net +44 franchised outlets in the latest year (136 opened, 92 closed); 46 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL10 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 5 name the franchisor itself, 5 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
- Parent company
- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (RBILP)
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI)
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
- CEO title
- President, U.S. and Canada
- Jeffrey Klein
- Incorporated in
- MN
- HQ
- 5707 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, Florida 33126
- Auditor
- Not specified in Item 21 text (RBI consolidated financials attached as Exhibit L)
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $8.4B
- vs $7.0B prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Affiliated brands
- Franchising Start Date Restaurant Count
Other brands the franchisor or its parent operates (Item 1).
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 9
3 other brands on this site name Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI) as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Jeffrey Klein
- Headquarters
- FL
- Founded
- 1972
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 51
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 430% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown13 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Fee | $50K | $50K | |
| Real Estate | — | — | |
| Soft Costs | $10K | $420K | |
| Site Work | $40K | $800K | |
| Building | $700K | $1.6M | |
| FF&E, Signage and Technology | $340K | $865K | |
| Initial Training | $17K | $24K | |
| Opening Supplies | $13K | $26K | |
| Insurance | $23K | $47K | |
| Utility Deposits | $3K | $50K | |
| Business Licenses | $1K | $7K | |
| Sitewise | $5K | $5K | |
| Additional Funds - 3 months | $20K | $30K | |
| Total initial investment | $1.2M | $3.9M |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $1.2M – $3.9M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $20K – $30K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $13K – $50K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 5.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 9.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
- Payback period
- 14.2 yrs
- From FDD / Item 19
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 5.0% |
| Technology fee | $0 |
| Training fee | $17K |
| Transfer fee | $8K |
| Renewal fee | $0 |
| Inventory (initial) | $13K – $26K |
| Total fee load | 9.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 103% above the quick-service restaurants norm.
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$2.6M
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
FDD-reported earnings
The FDD reports $328K as EBITDA $3. This is a disclosed figure, not our estimate — we publish no modelled profit for Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen.
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
- Avg gross sales
- $2.0M
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $1.9M
- Avg ebitda $3
- $328K
- Reported as EBITDA $3 in FDD Item 19
- Cash-on-cash
- 7.0%
- Based on EBITDA $3 / investment midpoint
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- Annual gross sales and EBITDA by restaurant format and sales tier, fiscal year 2024
- Sample size
- 2,186 outlets
- vs category median 19 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $255K→$6.2MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 91 of the 2025 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 9 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · above
Compared against 781 Quick-Service Restaurants brands
Revenue is only 0.8x the investment. This means each unit may take 5+ years to recoup the initial outlay at typical margins.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $2.0M/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 0.8x.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 9.0% — above the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.5%.
Disclosure
Transparency score 9/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System expanding at 6.0% CAGR over 3 years across 3,177 units — operators are staying and new ones are joining.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 3,177
- Opened
- 136
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 92
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 8
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 2.9%
- Company-owned
- 98
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 97%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +6.0%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +6.0%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 8
- Transferred
- 125
- Reacquired
- 58
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 46
- 0.01 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 133
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 3.9%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 1.9%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 3.1%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 49 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Available to sell in · Item 12
- California
- Illinois
- Michigan
- New York
- Wisconsin
States where the franchisor is registered to sell new franchises (FDD registration filings).
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
3,210 current owners across 49 states; 36 former (terminated, transferred or not renewed) listed separately.
- TX 431
- CA 285
- NY 242
- FL 222
- GA 175
- IL 154
- LA 154
- PA 119
- NJ 107
- MD 100
- VA 99
- OH 82
- +37 more states
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 332
- Loan volume
- $231.7M
- Median loan
- $840K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 10.4%
- on 332 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 89.6%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 0.0%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 92
- Defaults
- 23
- Typical loan rate
- 6.3%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 10.8%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 2,743
- 3.3 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 14%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 58% went to startups / new businesses, 42% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in limited-service restaurants, franchised businesses charge off at 10.8% vs 10.0% for independents — franchising is associated with 8% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchisees
Showing 3 of 92 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 74%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.31%
- Lender concentration
- 14.1%
- Job velocity
- 3.3 per $100K
- Startup risk premium
- 0.0pp
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.7%
- NAICS 722513
- Jobs supported
- 2,743
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 14% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Byline Bank | 10 | $9.9M | 0.0% |
| 2 | Cadence Bank | 6 | $4.1M | 0.0% |
| 3 | The Huntington National Bank | 4 | $4.2M | 0.0% |
| 4 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 4 | $3.9M | 0.0% |
| 5 | Peapack Private Bank and Trust | 4 | $4.7M | 0.0% |
| 6 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 3 | $333K | 0.0% |
| 7 | TD Bank, National Association | 2 | $2.9M | 0.0% |
| 8 | Commercial Bank of California | 2 | $4.0M | N/A |
| 9 | NewBank | 2 | $1.3M | 0.0% |
| 10 | Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company | 2 | $485K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CACalifornia | 11 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 10 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ALAlabama | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NYNew York | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| DCWashington DC | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MIMichigan | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NCNorth Carolina | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 3 | 0 | -- |
| ARArkansas | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 10.4% — 35% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Popeyes presents meaningful caution-level risk due to negligible unit growth, active multi-jurisdictional litigation, undisclosed financial reporting, and questionable return on investment timeline despite an established brand.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Two pending cases against PLK: (1) Khalid Zia Syed related to Toronto restaurant closures (Oct 2024, ONT); (2) Pinnacle Foods CA development agreement dispute (filed Dec 2020, franchisee in bankruptcy). PLK initiated: (3) v. Florida Pop LLC trademark enforcement (filed Oct 2023, settled Mar 2024). Concluded against PLK: (4) Elite Cajun Foods (settled Mar 2019). Multi-jurisdictional no-poach settlements with 13+ state AGs (Feb 2020, no money paid). Several affiliate cases (BK, TH) where PLK is not a party.
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Not specified in Item 21 text (RBI consolidated financials attached as Exhibit L)
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 financial statements are the audited consolidated statements of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI) and subsidiaries, the guarantor of franchisor obligations (default guarantor; RBILP guarantees in CA/IL/MD/ND/RI/VA/WA). The franchisor Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. provides only an unaudited shell balance sheet, so RBI's consolidated audited statements are used. All figures reported in millions of USD and scaled to whole dollars (x1,000,000). FY2024: total revenues $8,406M (supply chain $2,708M, company restaurant sales $1,592M, franchise & property $2,919M, advertising & other $1,187M); total net income $1,445M (incl. $424M noncontrolling interests; net income attributable to common shareholders $1,021M). Balance sheet reconciles: assets $24,632M = liabilities $19,789M + total shareholders' equity $4,843M (which includes $1,733M noncontrolling interests; RBI Inc. shareholders' equity alone $3,110M).
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: No
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 73 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORStagnant unit growth (1.4% YoY) suggests market saturation or franchisee underperformance, raising concerns about expansion viability
- 02MINORMultiple active litigation cases including class actions and antitrust allegations (no-poach violations) indicate systemic governance and compliance issues
- 03HIGHParent company RBI litigation involvement suggests corporate-level problems that could cascade to franchisees through policy changes or brand damage
- 04MINORHigh investment ceiling ($3.9M) relative to modest net income ($328K) yields 11-12 year payback period at best, concerning for ROI confidence
- 05HIGHBreach of development agreement litigation suggests franchisor enforcement inconsistency and potential territorial/growth restriction conflicts
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail10 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (2)
Khalid Zia Syed, 14111109 Canada Inc., 14111290 Canada Inc., 14111168 Canada Inc, and 141111231 Canada Inc. v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc., Rob Manuel, Tariq Shah, Shah & Shah Lawyers, Khurram Hafeez, Shazia Qureshi, Re/Max Real Estate Centre Inc. and Javid Ali
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2024-10-23 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · CV-00729046-0000
“Khalid Zia Syed, 14111109 Canada Inc., 14111290 Canada Inc., 14111168 Canada Inc, and 141111231 Canada Inc. v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc., Rob Manuel, Tariq Shah, Shah & Shah Lawyers, Khurram Hafeez, Shazia Qureshi, Re/Max Real Estate Centre Inc. and Javid Ali, (File No. CV- 00729046-0000), Ontario Superior Court of Justice , filed on October 23, 2024.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Pinnacle Foods of California, LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2020-12-31 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; removed to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; transferred to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 2OSTCV49914 (C.D. Cal. 2;21-cv-02050; S.D. Fla. 1:21-cv-21555)
“Pinnacle Foods of California, LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., (Case No. 2OSTCV49914), Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, filed on December 31, 2020”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Plaintiff also filed a motion in limine which Popeyes opposed, and Popeyes filed a motion to have facts asserted by Popeyes in support of its motion for summary judgment deemed admitted, which has been opposed by Plaintiff. The above-described motion for summary judgment and related motions remain pending.”
Concluded (3)
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. v. Florida Pop, LLC, Pop Restaurant Holdings, LLC and Guillermo Perales
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2023-10-16 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 23-cv-23955
“Unauthorized Trademark Usage Enforcement: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. v. Florida Pop, LLC, Pop Restaurant Holdings, LLC and Guillermo Perales, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 23-cv-23955, filed on October 16, 2023.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On March 27, 2024, the parties entered a settlement which resulted in the sale of almost all of Defendants’ Florida restaurants to an approved buyer and the payment of our attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 29, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss the case.”
Multi-Jurisdictional No-Poach Settlements (state Attorneys General)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · filed 2020 · State Attorneys General: Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia
“In February 2020, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the states of Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“None of the parties paid any money under the Settlement Agreements. These states enforced the settlement agreements through Final Judgments and Orders, Assurances of Discontinuance, Assurances of Voluntary Compliance and similar methods.”
Elite Cajun Foods II, LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2019-02-08 · United States District Court for the Northern District of California (removed from Superior Court, County of Contra Costa, Case No. C19-00010) · 3:19-cv-00706
“Elite Cajun Foods II, LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., (Case No. 3:19-cv-00706), United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed February 8, 2019.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On March 26, 2019, a settlement agreement was executed and the Plaintiff closed five of the six restaurants, and Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice.” (page 22)
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (4)
Jonathan Deschatelets v Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (parents) and The TDL Group Corp. (affiliate) · filed 2024-04-19 · Superior Court of Quebec · 500-06-001306-246
“Jonathan Deschatelets v Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp., (File No. 500-06-001306-246), Superior Court of Quebec, filed on April 19, 2024. On April 19, 2024, Jonathan Deschatelets filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants before the Superior Court of Quebec.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The certification hearing of the class action is scheduled for May 20, 2025. We are not a party to this litigation.” (page 21)
Plymouth County Retirement Association, Scott Hamparian, Emad Tadros and Zeiad Tadros V. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI), with individual directors Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane · filed 2024-10-07 · Court of Chancery of State of Delaware · C.A. No 2024 – 1030
“Plymouth County Retirement Association, Scott Hamparian, Emad Tadros and Zeiad Tadros V. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane, (C.A. No 2024 – 1030), Court of Chancery of State of Delaware, filed on October 7, 2024.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“RBI filed a motion to dismiss in December 2024 and the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in February 2025. RBI filed an amended motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Olympia Tile International Inc. vs. Restaurant Brands International Inc., The TDL Group Corp., Ricky Leem and Gesco Limited Partnership
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI, general partner of PLK's indirect parent RBILP) and The TDL Group Corp. (affiliate) · filed 2020-09-25 · Ontario Court of Justice (Statement of Claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) · CV-20-00648343-0000
“Olympia Tile International Inc. vs. Restaurant Brands International Inc., The TDL Group Corp., Ricky Leem and Gesco Limited Partnership, (File No. CV-20-00648343-0000), Ontario Court of Justice filed on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff Filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Defendants.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Defendants received Plaintiff’s Response to its Demand for Particulars on April 14, 2021 and filed a Statement of Defense on June 28, 2021. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · BK Corporation (Burger King Corporation) and affiliates incl. Burger King Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2019-03-15 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 18-24128-CV-MARTINEZ/AOR
“Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., (Case No. 18-24128-CV-MARTINEZ/AOR), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed on March 15, 2019.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On August 31, 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.”
Concluded (1)
PLK APAC PTE. Ltd. and Restaurant Brands International, Inc. v. Popeyes Shanghai Restaurant Management Co. Ltd.; TFI TAB Gida Yatirimlari A.Ş.; and TFI Asia Holdings B.V.
settledBrought against a franchisee · PLK APAC PTE. Ltd. (affiliate) and Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (parent) · filed 2021-03-12 · International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (Singapore) · ICC CASE NO. 26121/HTG
“PLK APAC PTE. Ltd. and Restaurant Brands International, Inc. v. Popeyes Shanghai Restaurant Management Co. Ltd.; TFI TAB Gida Yatirimlari A.Ş.; and TFI Asia Holdings B.V., (International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration, ICC CASE NO. 26121/HTG) filed on March 12, 2021.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties reached a confidential settlement which was acknowledged by the ICC pursuant to an Award by Consent dated June 20, 2022. We are not a party to this litigation.”
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.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 9.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 20 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory radius | 1 mi |
| Territory population | 50,000 |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 10 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 20 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 1 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 5 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Arbitration location | Miami, Florida (litigation venue) |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | FL |
| Litigation count | 10 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Two pending cases against PLK: (1) Khalid Zia Syed related to Toronto restaurant closures (Oct 2024, ONT); (2) Pinnacle Foods CA development agreement dispute (filed Dec 2020, franchisee in bankruptcy). PLK initiated: (3) v. Florida Pop LLC trademark enforcement (filed Oct 2023, settled Mar 2024). Concluded against PLK: (4) Elite Cajun Foods (settled Mar 2019). Multi-jurisdictional no-poach settlements with 13+ state AGs (Feb 2020, no money paid). Several affiliate cases (BK, TH) where PLK is not a party.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 10 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 116 hrs
- Training location
- Certified Training Restaurant and other designated locations
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Site selection
- Franchisee selects subject to franchisor approval; franchisor selects in PL (land/building lease) situations
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
3,246 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchise?
The total investment to open a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchise ranges from $1.2M – $3.9M, with an initial franchise fee of $50K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $2.0M. The median is $1.9M. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen?
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen is franchised by Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.. Its parent company is Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (RBILP). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI). Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen has a charge-off rate of 10.4% across 332 loans, meaning 10.4% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen has 3,177 total units in the United States, including 3,079 franchised units and 98 company-owned units. 136 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 73 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.