Franchise Articles

Abstract In Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment in favor of Daimler, rejecting a franchised truck dealer’s claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The dispute arose after Daimler authorized a new Freightliner dealership, Advantage Truck Group Raynham, within the plaintiff’s designated Area of Responsibility (AOR). The court found that the franchise agreement’s “Appointment Clause” unambiguously granted Daimler “sole discretion” to determine whether additional dealers were “warranted” in or near the plaintiff’s AOR. Because the clause was clear and the franchisee held only “nonexclusive” rights, Daimler’s decision to establish a new dealer—regardless of whether it conducted a market study or disclosed its reasoning—did not breach the agreement or the duty of good faith. Emphasizing that courts should not second-guess legitimate business decisions expressly reserved to franchisors, the court concluded that Daimler’s actions were consistent with the contract’s objectives and dismissed the dealer’s claims in their entirety. Facts and Background Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC involved a dispute between a long-standing Freightliner truck dealer and its franchisor, Daimler Trucks North America (“Daimler”), over Daimler’s decision to approve a new Freightliner dealership within the plaintiff’s market area. Rhode Island Truck Center (“RITC”) operated as an authorized Freightliner dealer under a Truck Sales and Service Agreement granting it a designated Area of Responsibility (AOR) in Rhode Island and southeastern […]

Read More

Abstract: In BrightStar Franchising, LLC v. Foreside Management Co., No. 1:25-cv-08741 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2025), the court granted in part BrightStar’s motion for a preliminary injunction against a former franchisee. BrightStar sued Foreside Management and its principals, Mark and Claire Woodsum, for breaching post-termination obligations in their franchise agreements after they allowed their BrightStar Care franchises to expire and continued operating independently in the same territories. Judge Rowland held that Illinois law governed the contracts, rejecting defendants’ argument that California’s Business and Professions Code § 16600 barred enforcement of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Relying on Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen, the court found franchise agreements are commercial, not employment, relationships subject to a “rule of reason,” and the restraints here were reasonable in scope and duration. The court concluded BrightStar showed a strong likelihood of success on its breach-of-contract claims, irreparable harm to its goodwill and confidential information, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored enforcement. Accordingly, the court enjoined defendants from competing with BrightStar, soliciting former clients, or using BrightStar’s marks and confidential information, but denied relief related to one office lease that was legally void. I. Factual Background BrightStar Franchising, LLC (“BrightStar”) is a national home-care franchisor that licenses franchisees to operate under its BrightStar Care system. Mark Woodsum, CEO of Foreside Management Company (“Foreside”), and his wife Claire operated BrightStar franchise agencies in Newport Beach and Mission Viejo, California under four franchise agreements entered in 2014–2015. Each agreement contained post-termination obligations, including 18-month […]

Read More

A recent article on Franchise Direct discusses the potential benefits of purchasing an “unconventional” franchise. It acknowledges the fact that new franchisees are increasingly becoming less interested in traditional brick-and-mortar storefront businesses, and it notes that alternate franchise opportunities “often work with lower overhead, meet specific market needs, and provide a fresh perspective on what it means to be a business owner.” But is it a good idea to choose an unconventional franchise? National franchise attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein shares his thoughts:

Read More

The Franchise Times recently released its “Top 400” list for 2025. As the publication explains, the list reflects “the biggest franchise brands by global systemwide sales.” But the list provides some other notable insights into the current state of the franchise industry as well. National franchise lawyer Jeffrey M. Goldstein shares his thoughts:

Read More

A bill titled the “American Franchise Act” is currently pending before the U.S. House of Representatives. Introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators, the bill is intended “[t]o preserve the franchise business model” by codifying the joint employer standard established by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2020. Learn more from national franchisee lawyer Jeffrey M. Goldstein:

Read More

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) reinstated its Franchise Directory earlier this year. Its decision to discontinue the Franchise Directory in 2023 as part of a broader effort to streamline its lending programs was largely decried within the franchise industry, with the International Franchise Association (IFA) noting at the time that about 20 percent of all SBA loans go to franchisees, and that franchising had played a significant role in the United States’ post-pandemic economic recovery. Now that the SBA Franchise Directory is back, what do you need to know? National franchise attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains.

Read More

Hiring an experienced franchise lawyer to conduct a franchise business review gives you an opportunity to ensure that you are making an informed decision about your investment. While you certainly aren’t required to hire a franchise lawyer to review your franchise opportunity, there are several important reasons to do so. 

Read More

While several states have franchise laws, many do not. If you live in a state that doesn’t have a franchise law, what does this mean for you? National franchisee lawyer Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains.

Read More

As a franchisee, you have the right to expect your franchisor to comply with the terms of your franchise agreement. You also have the right to expect your franchisor to comply with applicable law. But what does this mean, exactly? National franchisee attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains.

Read More

For franchisees, holding franchisors accountable often means pursuing franchise arbitration. The substantial majority of franchise agreements include mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions, and most of these require franchisees to pursue arbitration rather than going to court. For franchisees who are considering legal action against their franchisors, consulting with an experienced franchise lawyer is generally the first step toward determining whether arbitration is warranted.

Read More