Submitted by Eric Karp, and David J. Meretta, of Witmer Karp Warner & Ryan, LLP, NEFA Members.
One of the most exciting aspects of the new Franchise Disclosure Rule (which took effect on an optional basis as of July 1, 2007 and will become mandatory as of July 1, 2008) is the wholly new requirement that the franchisor include in its Disclosure Document the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and web address of any trademark-specific franchisee association within the franchise system that is either (a) created, sponsored or endorsed by the franchisor, or (b) incorporated and asks to be included in the disclosure document for the next fiscal year.
In the latter case, the request must be renewed in writing each year and made within 60 days following the end of the franchisor’s fiscal year. For our franchisee association clients, we prepare the notice to the franchisor requesting inclusion of the association in the Disclosure Document free of charge.
This component of the Rule is an important and emphatic statement of the Federal Trade Commission’s view of the vital role that franchisee associations can and do play in franchise systems. As observed by one federal district court nearly 30 years ago: One of the traditional control mechanisms of a franchisor has been to keep its franchisees disorganized.
Franchisees, by necessity, must have access to the franchise group in order to act together to deal with common problems, whether those problems be the oppressiveness of the franchisor or some less momentous concern.
McAlpine v. AAMCO Automatic Transmissions, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 1232, 1273-74 (E.D. Mich. 1978).
The access to a franchisee trade association that the McAlpine court sought to protect is currently secured by statute in eleven states: Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington.
Having followed the case law in this field for nearly three decades, we observe that judges and juries tend to work hard to find a path to sanction the franchisor when it is alleged to have treated a member or a leader of the franchisee association differently than other franchisees, particularly when that disparate treatment is seen as a retaliatory response to the relationship between that franchisee and the association. These cases often have egregious facts, which seem to drive the results.
Beyond a statement of the legitimacy and constructive nature of franchisee associations, this new required disclosure will give prospective franchisees access to a crucial source of information about the franchise system that will enhance their ability to fully investigate the franchise opportunity. We were privileged to play a role in supporting the inclusion of this requirement in the new Rule.
Recent Comments