B63/100FDD 2026
Tap — Litigation & Risk
Food & Beverage - Full Service · 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
63 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
FDD Items 5, 6 & 17 — what you give up
Contract Risk Indicators
Mandatory arbitration
Required
Disputes resolved outside court — limits your legal options
Jury trial waiver
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
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
Florida
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 63/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MINOROnly 4 franchised units with unknown growth trajectory suggests minimal system expansion and unproven scalability
- 02MEDNet income not disclosed in Item 19 prevents ROI validation; with $460k-$766k investment and $1.6M avg revenue, profitability is opaque
- 03HIGHGoing Concern status is FALSE, indicating potential financial instability or operational viability questions at franchisor level
- 04MINORHigh investment-to-revenue ratio (28-47% of first-year revenue needed upfront) with 6% royalty creates narrow margin for profitability
- 05MINORExtremely small unit count (4) raises questions about franchisor sustainability, support infrastructure, and supply chain leverage
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.