Franchising & Distribution Law Blog

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending various regulations governing SBA's 7(a) Loan Program and 504 Loan Program. As part of the amended revisions, the SBA is removing the provisions relating to affiliation based on franchise and license agreements. Because of that removal, the SBA is eliminating the SBA Franchise Registry as of May 11, 2023.  

Nevertheless, as requirement for all loans, SBA lenders must still examine the franchised business for affiliation based on ownership. The SBA announcement described the following as an example: “(W)hen lending to a Franchised business, the SBA Lender must determine who owns the applicant business and any businesses the applicant owns in accordance with these regulations. However, neither the SBA Lender nor SBA will review the applicant Franchised business for affiliation with other entities beyond ownership; the applicant business will not be considered affiliated with the Franchisor or other Franchised businesses except by ownership.”

As noted in Restaurant Dive, many restaurant chains have spent the last few years pushing for growth through multi-unit franchisees, but challenges could lie ahead, as franchisees will likely face challenges due to high costs and pressure to use new technologies.

New policy effective as of January 1, 2023

Franchisors routinely require prospective franchisees to answer questions about the franchise sales process and the franchisee’s understanding of the franchise agreement in writing by marking “yes” or “no” in a questionnaire. Likewise, franchise agreements often include statements similar to those in the questionnaire. These take the form of acknowledgments the franchisee agrees to when signing the franchise agreement.

Dawn Johnson, Beata Krakus, Susan Meyer, Abby Risner, and Leonard Vines recently attended two virtual franchise programs – the International Franchise Association Annual Convention and the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising. 

Although the full impact of COVID-19 remains unknown, many franchisors are looking to the future and new opportunities for franchise sales. Some franchises may be dramatically affected, either temporarily or permanently, and may have to significantly alter their business model to remain profitable. Others might actually benefit from the pandemic.

Unlike some states’ franchise laws, the Missouri Franchise Act gives limited protection to franchisees. However, it does provide that if a franchisor fails to give 90 days’ notice of cancellation or termination, the franchisee may be awarded “damages sustained, to include loss of goodwill, costs of suit, and any equitable relief that the court deems proper.” A recent case provided much-needed clarification on how damages are measured if a franchisor fails to give a proper notice of termination.

On May 8, 2017, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) released its final commentary on financial performance representations (FPRs), providing franchisors with additional clarification and guidance on how to prepare one of the most important parts of their franchise disclosure documents (FDDs).

Many states have seen attempts over the past several years to enact new franchise relationship legislation. California’s bills have made it further in the legislative process than those of other states, and by Sept. 30, we should know whether the latest attempt, bill AB 525, will make it all the way.

The smart money is betting that California Gov. Jerry Brown will sign the new bill that modifies certain provisions of the California Franchise Relations Act. The purpose of the bill is to give more protections to franchisees. Last year, the governor vetoed a similar but more franchisee-friendly bill (SB 610).

In a closely watched case with far-reaching implications, the California Supreme Court determined that Domino’s Pizza, the franchisor, should not be held liable for the alleged sexual harassment by an employee of one of its franchisees. The lengthy, well-reasoned decision gave great weight to the contemporary realities of the franchise business model and the unique nature of franchising. Noting how franchising has become such an important and thriving part of our economy, the Court followed the modern, enlightened view and rejected the reasoning of the old line of cases that found a franchisor vicariously liable for acts of its franchisees based on the degree of control they exercised over their franchisees.

The advances in technology have undoubtedly opened opportunities for franchisors and franchisees to enhance their business, enhance productivity, improve sales. However, such opportunities carry additional burdens and are not free of risk. Two recent examples of franchisor's potential liability arising out of technological advances highlight the need to be vigilant.