Skip to main content

Displaying 361 - 380 of 427

Opinion 95-7

Date
Compliance obligation of franchisor and area sub-franchisor to prepare annual update of joint disclosure statement within 90 days of the close of different fiscal years.

Opinion 95-6

Date
Applicability of the Franchise Rule to a sub-agency licensing arrangement for cellular phone services. Discusses the "required payment" coverage element and the "minimum investment" exclusion from the...

Opinion 95-3

Date
Applicability of the Franchise Rule to a not-for-profit education program. Discusses the lack of a "continuing commercial relationship."

Opinion 95-5

Date
Applicability of the Franchise Rule to a turn-key dry cleaning franchise. Discusses "significant assistance" coverage element.

Opinion 95-4

Date
Adequacy of predecessor company's unaudited financial statements to comply with required disclosure of the financial statements of a newly formed franchisor, and to provide substantiation for earnings...

Opinion 95-2

Date
Applicability of the Franchise Rule to a home-care services sub-contracting arrangement. Discusses "significant control or assistance" and "required payment" coverage elements, and "fractional...

Opinion 95-1

Date
Applicability of the Franchise Rule to computer software distributorship enabling health care providers to order medical and office supplies. Discusses applicability of the Rule to "distributorships"...

Qargo Coffee, Inc., et al., FTC v.

The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against coffee shop franchise Qargo Coffee and its founders for failing to disclose critical information required by the Franchise Rule, including one founder’s ties to burger franchise BurgerIM, leaving prospective franchisees in the dark when deciding whether to invest in the franchise.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged that Qargo and founders Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Bastorous, and Samir Shenouda violated the FTC’s Franchise Rule—the agency’s second case in recent years alleging violations of the Franchise Rule.

Under proposed order, the company and its founders are required to pay $30,000, provide franchisees the right to rescind contracts, and void noncompete agreements.

Type of Action
Federal
Docket Number
1:24cv23978
Case Status
Pending