The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Dec 21, 2014

Non-Disparagement Still Issue For Franchises

Legislative and judicial opposition to non-disparagement clauses is growing, but franchise owners should not jump for joy.

Mark Golob & Nikolaus Reed Target Franchisee Speech

Franchisors and their attorneys bringing frivolous claims to silence franchisee speech are nothing new.

Butterfly Fitness (now owned by Diversified Health) is only the most recent example in franchising.

The Ad That Changed The World: 50 Years of Sullivan

Not many advertisements are in the permanent collection of the National Archives.

Online Review Rankings Not Defamatory

The "Dirtiest Hotel In America" lost its appeal-- both with customers and in court.

Canada Rules Hyperlinks Not Defamatory

The Supreme Court of Canada struck a blow for internet free speech.

Habits of Annoying Lawyers

Trademark and media law guru Ron Coleman lists seven highly annoying habits of lawyers who send overreaching cease-and-desist letters to intimidate writers. Here's three of the seven.

Counterpoint: You Are Wrong, Steinberg

Let there be NO doubt, Robert Zarco and his law firm represent franchisees. Anybody who really knows my firm and the work we do knows that Robert Zarco is first and foremost the champion of franchisees across the country and around the world.

Point: Sue me, Bob Zarco

If Robert Zarco is going to sue everyone who speaks the truth about Cold Stone Creamery, he'd better hire a few more associates.

CNBC Shelves Cold Stone Story after Zarco Attacks

Cold Stone complains to CNBC that there show wasn't fair and CNBC pulls show
CNBC films a Cold Stone ice cream mix being made, source/CNBC

SCOTTSDALE, AZ –  CNBC unexpectedly pulled its documentary Behind the Counter: The Untold Story of Franchising after receiving a threatening letter from Kahala’s newly retained counsel Robert Zarco.

Court Protects Blogger Gripe Sites!

DETROIT—A seller of business opportunities, Career Agents Network Inc., not only lost its case against a persistent blogger who wrote unkind things about the firm, but in an unusual move the licensor was also ordered by the court to compensate the blogger $23,000 for legal fees.