Regulatory: The 3 criteria of an accidental franchise
Companies that market their goods or services through independent distributors may be surprised to learn their distributorship arrangement is in fact a franchise subject to federal and/or state regulation.
February 22, 2012 at 04:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Companies that market their goods or services through independent distributors may be surprised to learn their distributorship arrangement is in fact a franchise subject to federal and/or state regulation. Similarly, what may seem like a simple trademark license often crosses the line into franchise territory.
Franchise relationships are governed at the federal level by the so-called Franchise Rule, regulated and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. A slight majority of states have some form of franchise law or business opportunity statute. What constitutes a franchise or a business opportunity subject to these federal and state regulations is determined by the nature of the relationship, not by the label given to it by the parties.
The complexity of modern commercial relationships has led to an increasing number of accidental franchises—that is, commercial relationships not intended to be franchises, but which inadvertently fall within the broad reach of the franchise or business opportunity laws. Manufacturers or suppliers who distribute their trademarked goods or services through independent agents or licensees may easily cross the line separating ordinary business relationships from franchises.
Simply put, a business arrangement is a franchise or a business opportunity if it meets three basic criteria:
- The right to use a trademark in connection with the offer, sale or distribution of goods or services
- The payment of more than $500 during the first six months of the relationship
- Significant assistance to, or control over, the business of the person granted the right to use the trademark, which often takes the form of a prescribed marketing plan.
Regardless of whether the parties intend the arrangement to be a distributorship, a license or some other relationship, if it meets each of the above three criteria, it will be deemed a franchise or a business opportunity. For example, a simple trademark license in which the licensee pays more than $500 during the first six months will be considered a franchise if the licensor provides the licensee with a marketing plan or significant assistance. Similarly, a distribution agreement in which a distributor pays a manufacturer a fee of more than $500 and in which the manufacturer provides training, an operations manual, site selection assistance or marketing materials may be considered to fall within the purview of the franchise laws.
Among other requirements, the Federal Franchise Rule requires the franchisor to deliver to the potential franchisee a written Franchise Disclosure Document similar in scope to a prospectus used to sell securities. The requirements of state laws range from disclosure requirements to registration requirements.
Failure to comply with applicable federal and state franchise and business opportunity laws, whether such noncompliance is intentional or accidental, can have significant consequences. For example, each of the licensees or distributors in an accidental franchise may have the right to rescind the relationship, in which case the franchisor will be required to reimburse the licensee or distributor for all costs incurred in entering into the relationship, including license fees, royalties, build-out costs and equipment costs.
Knowing the elements of a franchise and being aware of the line that separates a license or distributorship relationship from a franchise will allow the parties to avoid the unwanted results of an accidental franchise.
Companies that market their goods or services through independent distributors may be surprised to learn their distributorship arrangement is in fact a franchise subject to federal and/or state regulation. Similarly, what may seem like a simple trademark license often crosses the line into franchise territory.
Franchise relationships are governed at the federal level by the so-called Franchise Rule, regulated and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. A slight majority of states have some form of franchise law or business opportunity statute. What constitutes a franchise or a business opportunity subject to these federal and state regulations is determined by the nature of the relationship, not by the label given to it by the parties.
The complexity of modern commercial relationships has led to an increasing number of accidental franchises—that is, commercial relationships not intended to be franchises, but which inadvertently fall within the broad reach of the franchise or business opportunity laws. Manufacturers or suppliers who distribute their trademarked goods or services through independent agents or licensees may easily cross the line separating ordinary business relationships from franchises.
Simply put, a business arrangement is a franchise or a business opportunity if it meets three basic criteria:
- The right to use a trademark in connection with the offer, sale or distribution of goods or services
- The payment of more than $500 during the first six months of the relationship
- Significant assistance to, or control over, the business of the person granted the right to use the trademark, which often takes the form of a prescribed marketing plan.
Regardless of whether the parties intend the arrangement to be a distributorship, a license or some other relationship, if it meets each of the above three criteria, it will be deemed a franchise or a business opportunity. For example, a simple trademark license in which the licensee pays more than $500 during the first six months will be considered a franchise if the licensor provides the licensee with a marketing plan or significant assistance. Similarly, a distribution agreement in which a distributor pays a manufacturer a fee of more than $500 and in which the manufacturer provides training, an operations manual, site selection assistance or marketing materials may be considered to fall within the purview of the franchise laws.
Among other requirements, the Federal Franchise Rule requires the franchisor to deliver to the potential franchisee a written Franchise Disclosure Document similar in scope to a prospectus used to sell securities. The requirements of state laws range from disclosure requirements to registration requirements.
Failure to comply with applicable federal and state franchise and business opportunity laws, whether such noncompliance is intentional or accidental, can have significant consequences. For example, each of the licensees or distributors in an accidental franchise may have the right to rescind the relationship, in which case the franchisor will be required to reimburse the licensee or distributor for all costs incurred in entering into the relationship, including license fees, royalties, build-out costs and equipment costs.
Knowing the elements of a franchise and being aware of the line that separates a license or distributorship relationship from a franchise will allow the parties to avoid the unwanted results of an accidental franchise.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250