Legal aspects

United StatesIn the United States, franchising falls under the jurisdiction of a number of state and federal laws. Franchisors are required by the Federal Trade Commission to provide a Uniform Franchise Offering Circular (UFOC) to disclose essential information to potential franchisees about their purchase. States may require the UFOC to contain specific requirements but the requirements in the State disclosure documents must be in compliance with the Federal Rule that governs federal regulatory policy.[17] There is no private right of action under the FTC Rule for franchisor violation of the rule but fifteen or more of the States have passed statutes that provide a private right of action to franchisees when fraud can be proved under these special statutes.

The franchise agreement is a standard part of franchising. It is the essential contract signed by the franchisee and the franchisor that formalizes and specifies the terms of the business arrangement, as well as many issues discussed in less detail in the UFOC. Unlike the UFOC, the franchise agreement is a fluid document, crafted to meet the specific needs of the franchise, with each having its own set of standards and requirements. But much like a lease, there are elements commonly found in every agreement.[17] "There is a difference between a discrete contract and a relational contract, and franchise contracts are a distinct subset of relational contracts." Franchise contracts form a unique and ongoing relationship berween the parties. "Unlike a traditional contract, franchise contracts establish a relationship where the stronger party can unilaterally alter the fundamental nature of the obligations of the weaker party......." [18]

There is no federal registry of franchises or any federal filing requirements for information. States are the primary collectors of data on franchising companies, and enforce laws and regulations regarding their presence and their spread in their jurisdictions. In response to the soaring popularity of franchising, an increasing number of communities are taking steps to limit these chain businesses and reduce displacement of independent businesses through limits on "formula businesses."[19]

The majority of franchisors have inserted mandatory arbitration clauses into their agreements with their franchisees. Since 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with cases involving direct franchisor/franchisee conflicts at least four times, and three of those cases involved a franchisee who was resisting the franchisor's motion to compel arbitration. Two of the latter cases involved large, well-known restaurant chains (Burger King in Burger King v. Rudzewicz and Subway in 517 US 681 (1996) Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto); the third involved Southland Corporation, the parent company of 7-Eleven in Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 US 1 (1984) .


RussiaIn Russia, under ch. 54 of the Civil Code (passed 1996), franchise agreements are invalid unless written and registered, and franchisors cannot set standards or limits on the prices of the franchisee’s goods. Enforcement of laws and resolution of contractual disputes is a problem: Dunkin' Donuts chose to terminate its contract with Russian franchisees that were selling vodka and meat patties contrary to their contracts, rather than pursue legal remedies.

UK
In the United Kingdom, there are no franchise-specific laws; franchises are subject to the same laws that govern other businesses. For example, franchise agreements are produced under regular contract law and do not have to conform to any further legislation or guidelines.[citation needed] There is some self-regulation through the British Franchise Association (BFA). However there are many franchise businesses which do not become members, and many businesses that refer to themselves as franchisors that do not conform to these rules.[citation needed] There are several people and organisations in the industry calling for the creation of a framework to help reduce the number of "cowboy" franchises and help the industry clean up its image.

On 22 May 2007, hearings were held in the UK Parliament concerning citizen initiated petitions for special regulation of franchising by the government of the UK due to losses of citizens who had invested in franchises. The Minister of Industry, Margaret Hodge, conducted hearings but resisted any government regulation of franchising with the advice that government regulation of franchising might lull the public into a false sense of security. The Minister of Industry indicated that if due diligence were performed by the investors and the banks, the current laws governing business contracts in the UK offered sufficient protection for the public and the banks