BEHIND THE BOTS: FRANCHISEES SAY ROBOTLAB ISN’T WHAT THEY WERE PROMISED
Promises vs. Reality: Inside RobotLAB’s Franchising Experiment
RobotLAB burst into the franchise world with a pitch that felt pulled from the future. Its glossy marketing promised a turnkey opportunity on the bleeding edge of robotics and AI, access to exclusive technology partnerships, and a business model poised to capitalize on explosive demand in hospitality, retail, and education. Franchise buyers were told they’d be pioneers in an emerging $100 billion industry, equipped with proprietary technology, national accounts, and a proven system designed for rapid scalability.
But according to information shared with Franchise Reality Check™; including a review of RobotLAB’s 2025 FDD, court filings, marketing claims, and firsthand accounts from inside the system; the story behind the bots is far more complicated. Beneath the futuristic branding lies a franchise concept built on shaky operational foundations, inflated promises, and a business model more dependent on selling robots to franchisees than selling robots to customers.
The Sales Pitch: “Exclusive Partnerships” and an Untapped Market
RobotLAB’s franchise offer leans heavily on two key selling points: supposed exclusivity with top robotics manufacturers and a massive addressable market within each territory.
Franchisees were told that RobotLAB held exclusive distribution rights with LG, giving them access to high-demand robotic service technology unavailable anywhere else. They were also promised “national accounts” with major hotel brands, including Hilton, suggesting a pipeline of ready-made customers for delivery and service robots. On top of that, RobotLAB marketed its territories as containing “8,000 qualified businesses”; a figure meant to illustrate the enormous revenue potential and justify the six-figure franchise investment.
But almost none of those claims hold up under scrutiny.
Industry sources confirm that LG does not grant exclusivity to any robotics distributor. The manufacturer works with multiple partners, meaning RobotLAB franchisees have no protected advantage in the marketplace. As for Hilton, the “national account” touted in franchise sales conversations with RobotLAB CEO Elad Inbar turns out to be little more than a listing on Hilton’s Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) portal. Not a contract, not a partnership, and not a guaranteed revenue stream.
Even the “8,000 qualified businesses” number appears misleading. Internal lists shared with some franchisees include everything from convenience stores to sandwich chains, businesses that would almost never spend $25,000 on a service robot. In other words, the opportunity may exist on paper, but it bears little resemblance to the reality franchisees face once they open their doors.
False Exclusivity and a Misrepresented Opportunity
This pattern, bold claims that unravel under scrutiny, extends beyond RobotLAB’s manufacturer relationships and target market. It’s woven into the very structure of the franchise system itself.
The company positions its franchise as a vehicle for tapping into surging demand for robotics across industries. Yet many franchisees say the system is failing to deliver on even basic operational promises. Several report that there’s no functional back-office platform, chaotic accounting practices, and a Salesforce CRM implementation described as “a disaster.” Others say they received little to no meaningful lead generation support, despite RobotLAB presenting lead generation as a core benefit of joining the system.
Even more troubling: RobotLAB does not stock demo units or spare parts, forcing franchisees to scramble for basic inventory. When pressed for information about robot reliability, franchisees say corporate often cannot provide basic data on expected failure rates.
One operator described the experience bluntly: “Half of what’s in the FDD is just out-and-out lies.”
The result is a franchise network that, rather than running on the strength of its technology or corporate systems, is fueled largely by the money franchisees spend up front on inventory, territory fees, and ongoing supply purchases. That brings us to perhaps the most significant red flag of all.
Built on Selling to Franchisees, Not Customers
RobotLAB’s revenue model raises serious questions about the sustainability and integrity of the system. According to internal information shared with Franchise Reality Check™, the company buys robots from manufacturers at around 50% of MSRP and resells them to franchisees at about 70% of MSRP, capturing a margin of roughly 30–40% on hardware sales alone. On top of that, the company collects an 11% royalty on gross revenue.
That margin structure might be defensible if franchisees were consistently selling robots to customers. But the reality appears far bleaker. Franchisees report that most haven’t sold a single robot from their initial “starter pack”. In fact, only one franchisee in the system is said to be currently cashflow-positive, and that’s largely due to a single major contract with a national hospitality client, NOT repeatable unit economics.
In other words, RobotLAB’s financial engine seems to run not on customer demand but on franchisees themselves. Most of the company’s revenue comes not from royalties, a sign of a healthy, customer-driven franchise system, but from selling inventory and required products to its own network. In 2024, roughly 81% of corporate revenue came from these internal sales. (2025 FDD)
As one insider put it: “We buy robots at 70% MSRP, he (CEO Elad Inbar) buys them at 50%, then takes 11% royalty. He was planning 30–40% margin on hardware alone.”
That reliance on franchisee purchases over end-customer sales is a hallmark of risky, potentially deceptive franchise systems; and it’s one of several warning signs regulators and franchise attorneys look for when evaluating compliance with the FTC Franchise Rule.
A System Under Strain
The financial picture inside the system further underscores how fragile RobotLAB’s business model may be. The company sold 23 territories in 2024, but allegedly only 3–4 in 2025. With territory sales slowing, corporate has reportedly left key support roles unfilled and cut back on franchise support staff from four people down to two.
For franchisees, that means less training, fewer resources, and minimal lead generation even as they continue paying royalties and required fees. The picture that emerges is not of a rapidly scaling robotics business but of a franchisor struggling to build a viable support infrastructure, even as it sells a vision of cutting-edge growth.
The Legal Storm They Didn’t Disclose
Even as RobotLAB was selling territories and touting its growth story, serious legal problems were already unfolding and franchise buyers were never told.
On April 10, 2025, just eight days before RobotLAB issued its 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a lawsuit was filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court: Atrium Associates, LP v. RobotLAB, Inc., Robotsapps.com Inc., and Elad Inbar. The complaint accused RobotLAB and its CEO of signing commercial lease agreements under the name Robotsapps.com Inc., a corporate entity that had ceased to exist years earlier. The plaintiff alleged that this amounted to misrepresentation of corporate identity and a failure to maintain proper corporate formalities; grounds for piercing the corporate veil and holding Inbar personally liable.
The suit also alleged that RobotLAB abandoned its Walnut Creek office in October 2024, despite a lease running through January 2026, leaving tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent. The complaint sought not only back rent and attorney’s fees but also a declaration that Inbar could be personally liable due to the misuse of corporate entities.
This is precisely the type of material civil litigation that franchisors are required by law to disclose in Item 3 of their FDD. And yet, RobotLAB’s 2025 FDD dated April 18, 2025, more than a week after the lawsuit was filed, stated there were no pending legal actions involving the franchisor or its leadership that needed to be disclosed.
That omission is not a minor oversight. Under the FTC Franchise Rule, any pending legal action that could materially affect the franchise relationship or the franchisor’s ability to perform must be disclosed. That includes breach-of-contract cases, corporate misrepresentation claims, and actions seeking to pierce the corporate veil, all of which apply here.
Adding to the gravity: on January 3, 2025, RobotLAB surrendered its California business certificate and re-registered in Texas; a move often associated with attempts to limit liability or shield assets. That change was never mentioned in the FDD either.
On June 5, 2025, RobotLAB and Atrium Associates filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement, with dismissal conditioned on certain terms being met by November 1, 2025. But a settlement reached after an FDD’s issuance doesn’t erase the duty to disclose that litigation existed when the document went effective. By any reasonable standard, the omission of this lawsuit from the April 18 FDD is a potential material violation of federal franchise law and could also trigger state-level action in registration states.
For franchisees who signed agreements based on that FDD, this could be more than just a technicality. It could mean they were sold a franchise on the basis of incomplete or misleading information, potentially giving rise to rescission rights or claims for damages.
Retaliation and Weaponization of the Franchise Agreement
Concerns about RobotLAB’s legal compliance extend beyond the courtroom. Inside the system, multiple sources describe a culture of retaliation and intimidation that appears designed to keep franchisees in line and suppress dissent.
Franchisees report being threatened with termination for minor administrative issues like delays in quarterly reports. Others say RobotLAB has used the franchise agreement itself as a weapon, citing “non-compliance” over staffing levels or alleged “unauthorized contact” with manufacturers as grounds for default notices.
One clause in particular has raised alarm: RobotLAB considers direct contact with manufacturers an “incurable breach.” Franchisees say they’ve received legal threats simply for trying to source parts or ask technical questions directly from suppliers even when corporate failed to provide the support they needed.
This strict control over supplier relationships is significant. Because RobotLAB requires franchisees to purchase robots exclusively through corporate, capturing a 30–40% markup in the process, preventing direct supplier contact isn’t just about brand control; it’s about protecting a lucrative revenue stream. That dynamic has led some manufacturers to bypass RobotLAB entirely, appointing other distributors in supposedly “protected territories” and further undermining franchisees’ access to technology.
In some cases, RobotLAB has gone further. According to internal accounts, the company even considered terminating a franchisee’s agreement in order to seize a lucrative client relationship for itself. And when franchisees began voicing concerns collectively, critical voices on the franchise advisory council were reportedly removed and replaced with more compliant members.
The message, according to multiple operators: challenge corporate, and risk retaliation with the loss of your investment.
Concealed Closures and Creative Accounting
While RobotLAB’s 2025 FDD shows steady growth, from 5 franchised outlets in 2023 to 29 in 2024, insiders say those numbers don’t tell the whole story. Closures and transfers, they allege, were deliberately pushed into 2025 to avoid disclosure in the FDD. In other cases, territories were “transferred back to corporate” rather than labeled as closures or terminations, keeping the Item 20 tables looking artificially clean.
That discrepancy aligns with reports that only one franchisee is currently cashflow positive and that most territories haven’t sold a single robot from their initial inventory. It also calls into question the integrity of the FDD itself which states that no units were terminated, transferred, or closed through the end of 2024.
The pattern echoes other troubled franchise systems: conceal negative data, shift dates to avoid disclosure, and present a sanitized picture of growth. Regulators in states like Minnesota, New York, and California have previously sanctioned franchisors for similar tactics; and RobotLAB could face scrutiny if these claims are substantiated.
A System Under Regulatory Risk
Taken together, the evidence points to a franchise system that may be operating in violation of multiple provisions of franchise law:
Material omissions in Item 3 by failing to disclose pending litigation before the FDD’s issuance date.
Misrepresentations in franchise sales regarding exclusivity, national accounts, and market opportunity.
Potential violations of good faith and fair dealing through retaliation, intimidation, and manipulation of advisory councils.
Possible restraint of trade by threatening franchisees over manufacturer contact and enforcing rigid supply restrictions.
Potential disclosure violations in Item 20 if closures and transfers were mischaracterized or deferred.
Each of these individually would be serious. Together, they paint a picture of a franchise concept that could attract scrutiny from the FTC, state regulators, or both, and that could face significant legal exposure if franchisees pursue rescission or damages claims.
The Bigger Picture
RobotLAB’s pitch; a chance to join the robotics revolution and build a future-proof business; is compelling. And on paper, the system looks like a success story: rapid growth, a national footprint, and partnerships with big-name brands.
But behind the buzzwords and press releases, a different story emerges. A system struggling to support its franchisees. A business model built more on selling inventory to operators than delivering solutions to customers. A leadership team accused of corporate misrepresentation and facing personal liability. And a franchisor that, despite likely knowing about pending litigation, issued an FDD claiming none existed.
Franchisees bought into a vision of innovation and opportunity. What many say they got instead was chaos, broken promises, and a system that seems designed to protect the franchisor and not its franchisee partners.
The information presented in this report is based on a combination of public records, Franchise Disclosure Document filings, court documents, and information shared with Franchise Reality Check™ by individuals familiar with RobotLAB’s franchise system. Certain sources have been anonymized to protect their identity and prevent retaliation. The allegations and claims described herein have not been proven in a court of law unless otherwise noted. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified legal counsel before making any investment decisions related to franchising.
