Franchise Articles

As we do every year, we are seeing several new franchise concepts vying for prospective franchisees’ attention in 2026. These include social gaming and boutique fitness franchises, among others. If you are thinking about buying a franchise, should you consider a new concept in one of these trending industries? Here are some key considerations from national franchise lawyer Jeffrey M. Goldstein.

Read More

The International Franchise Association (IFA) recently published its 2025 year-in-review. Titled, “2025: A Year That Redefined the Future of Franchising,” the report takes a (mostly) month-by-month look back at some of the IFA’s most notable activities over the past year. Here, franchise attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein shares some of his thoughts on the IFA’s report, as well as some additional insights on the year that was.

Read More

Most franchise agreements last two or three years before they expire. This is not a long time. In fact, for many franchisees, it is nowhere near enough time to build a business that allows them to recoup their initial investment—much less turn a profit. As a result, renewals can be essential, and franchisees whose agreements are up for renewal must ensure they make informed decisions focused on the future. Learn more from national franchise attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein.

Read More

The Franchise Times recently released its “Fast & Serious” list for 2026. According to the publication, this list ranks the “fast-growing franchise systems that also have staying power, as an antidote to multiple other rankings that include too many one-year wonders.” Here are some insights on the list from national franchise lawyer Jeffrey M. Goldstein.

Read More

Introduction The majority opinion in Davis v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, No. 24-2264, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 439 (4th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) held that an automated grocery fulfillment center could be considered a “retail store” under the relevant contract, finding ambiguity in the term and relying on extrinsic evidence to interpret its meaning. The district court’s approach, which was affirmed by the majority, involved looking beyond the plain meaning of “retail store” and considering trade usage and the specific context of the distribution agreement. The majority rejected the argument that only facilities primarily selling merchandise directly to ultimate consumers qualify as retail stores, instead adopting a broader interpretation that could encompass automated fulfillment centers. The dissent in Davis v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib., LLC argued that an automated grocery fulfillment center does not qualify as a “retail store” under the plain meaning of the term, as it does not primarily sell merchandise to ultimate consumers but instead functions mainly as a warehouse for storing and shipping products. The dissent criticized the district court for finding the term “retail store” ambiguous and relying on extrinsic evidence, rather than applying its ordinary dictionary definition as required by Pennsylvania law. It was concluded that the fulfillment center should not be considered a retail store, and thus the district court’s judgment should be reversed. In the end, as discussed below, parol evidence gave the court a complete picture of how the relevant terms functioned in practice. It allowed the judge to interpret […]

Read More

Last October, we published an article discussing the introduction of the American Franchise Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. As we said then, the bill seeks to codify the joint employer standard established by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2020, which prevents franchisors from being classified as co-employers of franchisees’ workers in the vast majority of circumstances. So, where does the American Franchise Act stand in 2026? National franchisee attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains.

Read More

It’s time for our annual year in review. Each year, we publish numerous articles on our blog—and 2025 was no exception. Throughout the year, we published dozens of articles that provide important information and insights for both prospective and current franchisees. Here, national franchisee attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein takes a look back at some of the highlights.

Read More

As a franchisee, you are responsible for building a successful business with the support—and within the confines—of the franchise model. This means that while you have the opportunity to leverage your franchisor’s experience and investment in its branding and systems, you are also required to play by the rules. So, what happens when you have a better idea than your franchisor? National franchise attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein explains.

Read More

As a prospective franchisee, it is critical to thoroughly review the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) for all of the franchise opportunities on your short list. The FDD contains a wealth of information—including information that franchisors are required (but may not necessarily want) to disclose. Once you decide on the franchise opportunity you want to pursue, you should have the FDD reviewed by an experienced franchise lawyer as well.

Read More

The case of Simpson v. Osteostrong Franchising, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-02334, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187471 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2025) centers on a dispute between a franchisor, Osteostrong, and several of its former franchisees and regional developers, including Sean and Charla Simpson, over the enforceability of franchise agreements, alleged misrepresentations, and the consequences of franchisee conduct following the breakdown of their business relationship. The franchisor, Osteostrong, operates a global franchise system offering wellness services through specialized equipment. Between 2013 and 2017, the franchisees entered into agreements to operate Osteostrong franchises in various states, and some, like the Simpsons, also entered into regional development agreements. Before entering these agreements, the franchisor provided Franchise Disclosure Documents (FDDs), which, as later discovered, failed to disclose that a key executive, Manny Butera, had a felony conviction and bankruptcy history within the prior ten years—information required to be disclosed under federal and state franchise laws. The franchisees alleged that this nondisclosure rendered the franchise agreements illegal, void, and unenforceable, and sought summary judgment on the franchisor’s breach of contract counterclaims and on the enforceability of general releases they had signed. The franchisor, in turn, sought summary judgment on the franchisees’ claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and statutory violations, arguing that these claims were barred by the general releases, limitations, and the law of the case. The court’s analysis began with the franchisees’ argument that the agreements were illegal and unenforceable due to the franchisor’s failure to comply with disclosure requirements. […]

Read More