Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Franchise Dispute Over Advertising Fund Not Subject to Dismissal
Posted in Advertising

A federal court in Indiana declined to dismiss a breach of contract claim concerning the collection of advertising and marketing funds by the franchisor of a members-only buying club franchise. In Arcangelo, Inc. v. DirectBuy, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164941 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2013), the district court concluded that the language of the franchise agreement was not sufficiently unambiguous to resolve the fee dispute as a matter of law. Arcangelo had filed suit claiming that DirectBuy charged excessive fees for advertising and marketing under the franchise agreement, which explicitly capped the amount of franchisee contributions to a marketing fund at three percent of gross new membership sales. Two separate provisions in the franchise agreement addressed DirectBuy’s marketing efforts, one titled “Marketing and Advertising,” and the other “Marketing Materials.” DirectBuy contended that the “Marketing Materials” section addressed costs associated with the placement of advertising, whereas the “Marketing and Advertising” section provided for the creation and development of the marketing fund that is the subject of the three percent cap.

The court was not persuaded by DirectBuy’s argument and found too much overlap in the language of each section to allow an unambiguous interpretation of how the franchise agreement applied to the specific charges disputed. The parties disagreed about whether certain fees were properly subject to the cap on marketing fund contributions or better characterized as “sales leads” that fell under a separate advertising category. The court concluded that more factual background was required concerning the history of the marketing fund, the practices and methods for DirectBuy’s assessment of fees to franchisees generally, and its history with Arcangelo in this case. Because the lawsuit was primarily a dispute over the proper interpretation of the parties’ franchise agreement, the court dismissed other tort claims alleged by Arcangelo, but found that the contract claim could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss and could proceed.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

About this Publication

The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP. 

To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here

Topics

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors