Printer Friendly

FTC revisits 'The Rule' for franchises.

Is there a town in New Hampshire without its fair share of classic franchises, such as Dunkin' Donuts or McDonald's, or less obvious franchises, such as Hannoush Jewelers or Edible Arrangements? And what about all of the domestic service providers who have bought into service franchise brands, such as MaidPro or LawnDoctor?

It might surprise franchisees or those contemplating a franchising opportunity that the role governing disclosures to a prospective franchisee has not been modified since it was first created in 1978. Until now.

In 1978, the Federal Trade Commission established detailed disclosure requirements for franchisors in the sale and marketing of franchises.

Under an FTC rule ponderously entitled, "Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures"--but known within the franchise industry simply as 'The Rule"--franchisors were for the first time required to provide to prospective franchisees extensive historical and financial information about themselves and the franchises they were marketing.

The focus of The Rule was to safeguard consumers from unfair and deceptive practices.

In light of the proliferation since 1978 of franchises across the country offering a vast array of goods and services, and recognizing technological changes that simplify the transmission of information but that can also enable an unscrupulous franchisor to exploit inexperienced prospective franchisees, the FTC recently revised The Rule for the first time since 1978.

While franchisors are permitted to follow the 1978 version of The Rule until June 30, 2008, they may also begin to follow the revised Rule immediately, and many have chosen to do so.

Extensive changes

One problem that developed for franchisors after 1978 was that numerous states created their own regulations for franchisors offering franchises with their borders. State regulations often required disclosures different from, and usually more extensive than, those required under The Rule.

Therefore, franchisors wishing to market franchises in those states were required to develop disclosure packages specially tailored to those states' requirements (or, commonly, to create a standard disclosure package with a separate addendum for each regulating state).

The FTC has to a large degree--but not completely--eliminated this problem by basing revised guidelines on which most state disclosure requirements are based. While the new roles reduce the number of adjustments a typical franchisor will likely be required to make to satisfy state regulators, adjustments will still be necessary, in many cases. Therefore, cautious franchisors will continue to review the franchise regulations of each state in which they intend to market franchises.

The full range of changes to the rule is extensive and, in some instances, highly technical. Franchisors should be aware generally that the revised rules change their disclosure requirements in the following areas:

* The number of days prior to the signing of a franchise agreement by which all disclosures may be made to a prospective franchisee.

* Licensing and permitting requirements that might affect a franchisee's operating costs and ability to conduct business.

* Competition that a franchisee is likely to face

* Advertising and purchasing operatives from which franchisee might required to buy goods or services.

* Non-refundable franchise fees.

* Whether the franchisor rewards franchisees who use specified suppliers.

* Conditions for business relocation, the establishment of additional locations and territorial exclusivity.

* Whether the franchisor plans to operate a competing franchise system.

* Rights and claims associated with trademarks.

* Policies for the renewal of franchises.

As the deadline for compliance with the revised Rule approaches, franchisors should be aware of the new requirements and be ready to comply when the deadline arrives. Franchisees, both existing and prospective, should be aware of the information they should expect to receive from a franchisor.

Time will tell whether the revised rules will streamline the disclosure process for franchisors without sacrificing safeguards created to protect franchisees, hut with so much that has changed, revisiting a rule drafted 30 years ago seems like a prudent move for all parties considered.

Tony Delyani, a director in the Corporate Department at the law firm of McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, focuses on all aspects of business law. He can be reached at 603-436-2818 or
COPYRIGHT 2008 Business Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Points of Law
Author:Delyani, Anthony
Publication:New Hampshire Business Review
Date:Jun 6, 2008
Previous Article:Leadership? New Hampshire?
Next Article:It's not necessarily easy being green: companies big and small are playing their green card for all it's worth.

Related Articles
Judicial update: developments in state and federal franchise law: a variety of interesting legal developments in both state and federal franchise law...
Association responds to FTC staff report on franchise rule.
FTC opposes California franchise law proposal.
Franchise rule upgrade: new rules allow for disclosure compliance via the Web.
Embracing the revised FTC franchise rule: the countdown has begun.
Electronic disclosure: the Future is now: prospective franchisees are responding very favorably to electronic disclosure.
The disclosure process--uncertainties, ambiguities and unresolved issues: while the disclosure document conversion process has gone quite smoothly...
The "new" rule: amendments and requirements: promptly following the updating requirements of the new franchise rule will enable franchise systems to...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters