Artificial intelligence (AI) is officially here. In 2024, we anticipate that franchisors in a wide range of industries will seek to adopt AI technologies in various capacities—whether they fully understand AI’s capabilities and implications or not. Some franchisors are also turning to robots to streamline their operations, and this is a trend that we expect to see continue throughout the year as well.

Read More

Many people buy their first franchise after getting fed up with their jobs. They get tired of working for someone else, and they decide that they are willing to take the risk of quitting in order to try something new. But this approach isn’t right for everyone. If you aren’t ready to quit your job—at least not yet—you might be thinking about starting a franchise as a side hustle. Here, Chicago franchise attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains what you need to know.

Read More

If you own a franchise, any disputes that arise between you and your franchisor will be subject to the terms of your franchise agreement. Most likely, this means that your dispute will be subject to mandatory mediation or arbitration—or perhaps both. As franchise lawyer Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains, while these forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are supposed to be neutral, there’s a reason why franchisors almost universally require ADR.

Read More

McDonald’s Fails to Shake Off Antitrust Fangs of Hourly Workers in Poaching Clause Case   By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein, Goldstein Law Firm, LLC Until recently, some franchise agreements, including those in the McDonald’s system, included a ‘no-poaching’ clause for workers from other franchises. These clauses historically had gone unchallenged by the government, franchisees, and workers. In a recent case involving the McDonald’s no-poaching clause, however, a United States District Court for the Seventh Circuit (“Court”) considered hourly workers’ claims that the no-poaching clause prevented them from taking higher-paying offers at other franchises and, as such, violated the antitrust laws. The district court decision that was challenged on appeal recognized that under Sherman Act Section 1, claims fall into two distinct categories: “naked restraints, akin to cartels, are unlawful per se, while other restraints are evaluated under the Rule of Reason. (The quicklook approach, see NCAA v. University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), is a subset of analysis under the Rule of Reason.).” In this regard, the district court rejected the per se theory of liability stating that “the anti-poach clause is not a naked restraint but is ancillary to each franchise agreement—and, as every new restaurant expands output, the restraint is justified.” The district court also deemed the complaint deficient under the Rule of Reason because it did not allege that McDonald’s and its franchises collectively had power in the market for restaurant workers’ labor. Under the Rule of Reason, failing to allege that the defendant or defendants held […]

Read More