Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

New York Federal Court Finds Local Advertising Requirement Does Not Constitute Franchise Fee

In Nature’s Plus Nordic A/S v. Natural Organics, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159157 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2013), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the local advertising requirement in a distributorship agreement did not constitute a “franchise fee” under the New York Franchise Sales Act (“NYSA”). In the case, Natural Organics, Inc. terminated a distributorship agreement when the distributor, Nature’s Plus, failed to meet the agreement’s minimum local advertising requirement and minimum gross sales requirement. Nature’s Plus sued, claiming wrongful termination and alleging violations of the NYSA. The only payments required under the distributorship agreement were payments due to Natural Organics for products sold at wholesale prices. The minimum advertising requirement was not payable to Natural Organics. Nature’s Plus argued that the minimum advertising requirement constituted a franchise fee, triggering the applicability of the NYSA.

The court found that a local advertising requirement may constitute a franchise fee under section §681(3) of the NYSA if the fee is paid “for the right to enter into the business,” even if the local advertising requirement is not payable to the alleged franchisor. In this case, however, because the distributorship agreement expressly stated that the advertising requirement was made as partial consideration for certain product discounts, the advertising payments were not made for the right to enter into a business and did not constitute “franchise fees” under the NYSA. With respect to the distributor’s wrongful termination claims, the court found that Natural Organics wrongfully terminated the distributorship agreement because, as a matter of law, Nature’s Plus substantially complied with the minimum gross sales requirement by achieving 99.5% of the gross sales required under the contract. The court did determine that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Nature’s Plus met its minimum advertising requirement.

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

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors