The Truth About The Autobotics Franchise System
🛑 This is a fictional case study intended for educational and advocacy purposes. Any resemblance to actual persons or entities is coincidental.
Autobotics entered the franchise world with the kind of swagger usually reserved for companies that have already changed an industry. Its pitch was futuristic, sleek, and irresistible on paper: a turnkey robotics dealership poised to dominate emerging automation demand across hospitality, retail, logistics, and education.
Prospective owners were told they’d be stepping into a once-in-a-generation opportunity, exclusive robotics distribution rights, national accounts with marquee hotel brands, and a massive addressable market ready to buy autonomous delivery machines.
But according to a comprehensive review of Autobotics’ Franchise Disclosure Documents from 2023 through 2025, franchise sales materials, internal information, and firsthand accounts from operators across the country, the promise of Autobotics looks very different from the reality franchisees say they’re experiencing.
Behind the polished decks and futuristic branding lies a franchise system fueled less by customer demand and more by the money Autobotics makes from selling robots to its own operators. And when the financial representations inside the franchise sales process are compared to the actual numbers in the FDDs, the contradictions are not minor; they are systemic.
This report pulls together the full picture.
No hype, no theatrics. Just documentation, context, and the truth.
THE SALES PROMISE: EXCLUSIVITY, NATIONAL ACCOUNTS, AND BIG TERRITORIES
Autobotics’ franchise recruitment machine is built on two core claims:
1. Exclusive rights to distribute VERTEX Robotics products
Prospective buyers were told Autobotics held exclusive access to high-demand autonomous service robots produced by VERTEX Robotics Group; a claim that, if true, would give operators a defensible competitive advantage.
Except it wasn’t true. VERTEX confirmed to multiple industry sources that the company grants no exclusivity to any reseller.
2. Access to massive territory opportunities
Autobotics advertised each defined territory as containing “7,500 qualified businesses,” including hotels, senior living centers, hospitals, corporate campuses, and logistics hubs.
Yet internal target lists provided to some owners included dozens of irrelevant businesses; convenience stores, dry cleaners, barber shops, and fast-food chains, the types of companies that would never pay $25,000–$30,000 for a service robot.
3. National accounts ready to buy
One of the most compelling claims: Autobotics allegedly had “national accounts” with a major hotel brand, Voyage Suites.
But franchisees soon discovered that the relationship was not a contract, partnership, or pipeline of ready-to-buy customers. It was simply an approved vendor listing inside Voyage Suites’ procurement portal, the equivalent of being in a directory.
It’s little more than permission to bid.
THE FINANCIAL PROMISE: $1 MILLION YEAR ONE, $3 MILLION YEAR THREE
Buried inside Autobotics’ 2024 franchise sales presentation, a glossy pitch deck distributed during recruitment, were the kinds of specific revenue projections franchisors are prohibited from making unless included in Item 19.
The slide read:
Target Revenues Per Territory
Year 1: $1,000,000
Year 3: $3,000,000
Accompanied by:
Average invoice: $16,600
62 invoices per year, per territory
3 contiguous territories recommended “for optimal scale”
These are explicit, quantifiable earnings claims.
No ambiguity.
No wiggle room.
No “illustrative example” framing.
This is financial performance representation, the exact kind federal law restricts unless the franchisor includes Item 19 data in the FDD.
Yet Autobotics made these promises in 2023.
And again in 2024.
Under FDDs that both explicitly stated:
“We do not make any financial performance representations.”
That contradiction forms the backbone of the issues inside the system.
WHAT THE FDDs ACTUALLY REVEAL (2023–2025)
To understand the gravity of the situation, you have to look at what Autobotics disclosed, and what it didn’t.
2023 FDD — No Item 19
Autobotics offered no financial performance data and warned buyers that no projections would be provided.
Meanwhile, the 2023 sales presentation claimed $1M–$3M revenue potential.
2024 FDD — Still No Item 19
Again, no financial performance representation.
Again, the same revenue slides were used in franchise sales presentations.
This is not oversight.
It is a pattern.
2025 FDD — Item 19 Appears, But…
Suddenly in 2025, Autobotics introduced a financial performance representation. But instead of meaningful franchisee performance, it disclosed:
81 invoices systemwide
Across 13 reporting territories
Average invoice: $26,042
Median invoice: $7,320
57% average margin
41 invoices were warranty transfers from corporate
No data from franchisees with zero sales
No territory-level revenue
No profitability metrics
In short:
It showed only the narrowest slice of revenue, not the actual health of the franchise system.
And it certainly did not support the seven-figure targets Autobotics spent two years promising.
THE MATH THAT NEVER WORKED
Let’s compare what Autobotics sold vs. what actually happened.
Sales Pitch (2023–2024):
62 invoices Ă— $16,600 = $1,029,200 per territory in Year One.
Actual 2025 Systemwide Data:
81 invoices total
Across 13 territories
~6 invoices per franchise on average
Half of those invoices corporate-to-franchise transfers
You don’t need a spreadsheet to see the problem:
Autobotics promised 62 invoices per year per territory.
They delivered six.
And most weren’t even real customer sales.
THE REAL REVENUE MODEL: SELLING TO FRANCHISEES
Financial disclosures in Item 8 paint a picture that contradicts Autobotics’ marketing narrative.
A healthy franchise earns money from marketplace demand: royalties driven by franchisee revenue.
Autobotics earns money from selling robots to franchisees.
A lot of money.
2023: 73% of franchisor revenue from franchisee purchases
2024: 75.6%
2025: 81%
When more than 80% of your revenue comes from internal sales, you’re not building a franchise system. You’re building a franchisee-funded inventory pipeline.
Franchisees say the deck was stacked from the start:
Autobotics buys robots at ~55% of MSRP
Sells them to franchisees at 85–90% of MSRP
Collects 11% royalties on top
Controls all suppliers and parts
Prohibits direct manufacturer contact
Imposes rising tech fees and service fees
The alleged result:
Franchisees struggling to recoup their investment while Autobotics profits whether franchisees do or not.
THE MOST DANGEROUS CLAIM: “100% MARGIN”
One slide in the sales deck boldly promises:
“100% margin on warranties and software.”
But franchisees later learned:
Royalties are deducted from all transactions
Processing fees apply
Required software fees rose dramatically year over year
Additional per-user fees apply
Corporate retains markup control on all hardware
There is no scenario in which a franchisee nets “100% margin.”
This claim alone could constitute a significant misrepresentation under franchise law.
UNDISCLOSED LITIGATION: THE PROBLEM OF “KNOWLEDGE” UNDER ITEM 3
While Autobotics was actively selling territories using its revenue presentation, a lawsuit was filed on March 30, 2025, in Marston County Superior Court:
Harvest Capital Partners v. Autobotics Systems, Inc., TechFleet Solutions LLC, and CEO Morgan Vance.
The complaint alleged that:
Autobotics’ CEO signed commercial lease agreements using a dissolved corporate entity
The franchisor abandoned a leased facility with more than $200,000 in unpaid rent
Corporate formalities were not observed
The conduct supported potential piercing of the corporate veil and personal liability
These are not routine grievances. They are allegations that directly implicate the financial stability, corporate governance, and integrity of the franchisor, all of which fall squarely under Item 3: Litigation of the Franchise Disclosure Document.
Service vs. Knowledge: Why the Lawsuit Still Should Have Been Disclosed
It is true that the defendants were not served with the lawsuit until after Autobotics issued its 2025 FDD.
However, under the FTC Franchise Rule, disclosure obligations are not limited to lawsuits that have been formally served.
The requirement hinges on:
1. Whether the lawsuit has been filed, and
2. Whether the franchisor knows or should know that the legal action exists.
The Rule does not allow franchisors to avoid disclosure simply because service hasn’t occurred. If a lawsuit is filed in public court records, and especially if it names the franchisor and its executives, regulators expect that:
The franchisor would become aware of the lawsuit through normal commercial diligence, OR
The franchisor should have mechanisms in place to monitor filings involving its corporate entities
In other words:
Service is not the standard. Materiality is. Knowledge is.
Material Litigation Requires Disclosure and Correction
Under 16 CFR § 436.7(b), if a franchisor becomes aware of a material change after issuing an FDD, the franchisor must:
Cease sales using the outdated FDD, and
Issue a corrected or amended FDD reflecting the new material information
Litigation that:
alleges corporate misrepresentation
seeks to pierce the corporate veil
includes significant financial claims
involves unpaid rent, lease abandonment, or fraud
names the CEO personally
…is almost universally considered material.
Even if Autobotics was not served until after publication, the filing itself; a matter of public record; should have triggered:
A revised 2025 FDD, OR
A state-specific amendment in registration states, OR
At minimum, a written notice of material change to any prospective franchisees who received the original document
No such correction, amendment, or notice has been published or recorded that we are aware of.
A CULTURE OF SILENCE AND RETALIATION
Several Autobotics franchisees report a culture of fear inside the system where raising concerns risks retaliation.
Operators detailed experiences such as:
Threats of termination for minor administrative issues
Legal warnings for attempting to contact manufacturers
Removal of critical voices from the Franchise Advisory Council
Pressure to remain silent about financial struggles
Alleged attempts by corporate to reclaim lucrative accounts
Forced migration from private peer groups to franchisor-controlled communication channels
These allegations paint a picture of a system where the franchisor’s top priority is controlling the narrative, not supporting its operators.
ITEM 20: THE NUMBERS THAT NEVER MADE IT INTO THE FDD
Autobotics reported growth from 3 franchised outlets in 2023 to 30 in 2024. But insiders say this is misleading.
They allege:
Several closures occurred in late 2024
Multiple territories were “returned to corporate”
Some failed units were classified as transfers to avoid disclosure
Planned terminations were delayed into the next reporting year
If true, these tactics mirror practices that have triggered enforcement actions in other states.
THE SYSTEMIC RISK FOR FRANCHISEES
When you look at the entire picture together, a pattern becomes unavoidable:
Seven-figure revenue claims
No Item 19 in the years the claims were made
A dramatically weaker Item 19 introduced later
A revenue model dependent on franchisee purchases
Allegations of retaliation
Undisclosed litigation
Alleged manipulation of FDD reporting
In our opinion, each of these is serious. Combined, they represent a system with significant regulatory and legal exposure.
And for franchise buyers, the consequences are even more tangible:
Investments that cannot be recouped
Territories unlikely to produce the revenue promised
Mandatory quotas tied to inflated projections
Systems not ready to support operators
Inventory that cannot be sold
Agreements that heavily favor the franchisor
THE BIGGER PICTURE
The Autobotics model is not just an emerging franchisor struggling with early-stage growing pains. It reflects a deeper, structural issue:
A system built on selling a futuristic dream instead of delivering a viable business model.
Franchisees were sold:
Million-dollar revenue potential
Exclusive partnerships
Guaranteed demand
A turnkey operation
A future-proof business
What many ended up with:
A margin-heavy inventory purchase agreement
Minimal customer demand
Underdeveloped support infrastructure
Revenue projections that were never real
Legal exposure they weren’t told about
A franchisor that profits even if they don’t
The robots weren’t the problem. The business model was.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Autobotics marketed a vision of innovation, scale, and technological transformation but the numbers, documents, and franchisee accounts tell another story.
From unsubstantiated revenue projections to undisclosed litigation to a franchisor revenue model that relies overwhelmingly on franchisee purchases, the system raises questions that every prospective investor deserves answers to.
Franchisees invest their savings, time, and families into these concepts. They deserve transparency, accuracy, and disclosures grounded in reality not aspiration.
Autobotics offered a glimpse of the future. But its franchise system may be repeating some of franchising’s oldest mistakes.
And for now, the most important numbers weren’t the ones in the marketing deck, they were the ones that never made it into the FDD.
STATEMENT FROM AUTOBOTICS CEO MORGAN VANCE
(Provided in response to questions from Franchise Reality Check™)
“Autobotics remains fully committed to transparency, innovation, and the long-term success of our franchise partners. Unfortunately, a small number of individuals, some hiding behind anonymity, have chosen to circulate misleading narratives that do not reflect the realities of our system or the progress our network is making.
It is important for our franchisees to know that the claims being repeated online are based on partial information, outdated documents, and opinions presented as fact. Autobotics meets all legal disclosure requirements and consistently updates our Franchise Disclosure Document in accordance with federal and state regulations.
Regarding recent allegations, our legal team is actively reviewing the statements being published about Autobotics and its executives. While we respect the right of individuals to express their opinions, knowingly spreading false or harmful information is a serious matter. We will take appropriate steps to protect the brand, our franchisees, and the integrity of our system.
We encourage any franchisee with questions or concerns to reach out to us directly. We remain confident in our model, our data, and our trajectory as a leader in applied robotics. Autobotics continues to expand, innovate, and deliver measurable value to the businesses we serve and we will not be distracted from that mission.”
This report is a fictional case study created for educational, analytical, and illustrative purposes. All characters, companies, events, financial data, legal situations, and franchise-related scenarios described in this article are entirely fictional and are not intended to represent or depict any actual person, organization, or franchise system. Any resemblance to real individuals, companies, or events is purely coincidental.
This publication is designed to demonstrate how franchise due diligence, disclosure analysis, and investigative techniques can be applied in practice. It is not based on real franchise filings, real business conduct, or real litigation, nor should it be interpreted as commentary on any existing franchisor or franchisee.
Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice, financial advice, factual assertion, or an allegation of wrongdoing by any real person or entity. Readers are encouraged to consult qualified professionals before making any decisions related to franchising or business investments.
Franchise Reality Check™ does not accept compensation from any franchisor, franchisee, supplier, broker, or related party in connection with this fictional case study. The content is provided solely for public education and awareness.
By reading or sharing this content, you acknowledge that it is entirely fictional, constitutionally protected as creative expression and commentary, and intended only to illustrate franchise disclosure concepts in a hypothetical scenario.
