Today, the Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) 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.
Last night I reviewed a franchise agreement and found a surprising, and illegal, provision buried deep in the contract. If ever there was a compelling case for being careful when you are choosing legal counsel, I just found the provision that makes it.
Franchisees and franchisors continue to fight new minimum wage laws by U.S. cities that discriminate unfairly against small business owners who are affiliated with franchise systems. Are these types of laws “industry specific” within the meaning of Item 1 of the Franchise Disclosure Document?
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.
In a $3 million lawsuit, actor Jesse Eisenberg (star of The Social Network) claims that he was exploited by the producers of the direct-to-DVD movie, Camp Hell, when they overplayed his small role in the film by featuring his likeness on the DVD cover art. Franchising laws help to prevent this type of overstatement or puffery by requiring disclosure of important information to potential franchisees.
Forward Franchising 