The Federal Trade Commission recently issued new guidance that will affect how franchisors disclose whether they grant exclusive territories to franchisees.
The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) recently announced an amendment to its “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising” (16 C.F.R. Part 436) (the “Franchise Rule”) revising the monetary limits for three of the listed exemptions.
Some franchisors continue to use a different Franchise Disclosure Document for each state that has a franchise or registration law. This approach increases the administrative burden on franchisors, as well as the risk of unintentional violation of a state’s franchise law where more than one state law applies to a transaction.
Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling that will require out-of-state franchisors to pay tax on income earned through royalties earned from Iowa-based franchisees. The decision has implications for any business that derives income from intangible assets (through licensing or otherwise) located in another state.
Differences between California’s statute and regulation on negotiated franchise sales can be confusing even to experienced practitioners. This article explains the reasons for the differences and offers suggestions for resolving the conflict between the two provisions.
Are you unknowingly operating a franchise system? If you are licensing others to use your trademarks for a fee, the answer could be yes. Under federal or even state law, a commercial relationship between two parties could be a franchise — even if neither of the parties intended to create one.