Rolling Suds and the Missing Franchisees
Rolling Suds has positioned itself as a fast-growing brand in the power-washing space, emphasizing transparency and what is called “responsible franchising.”
A close reading of its Franchise Disclosure Documents, however, reveals how the definitions and structures within franchise filings can evolve in ways that reshape how data appears to prospective franchisees. Terms such as open, transfer, or territory take on specific meanings in disclosure language that can significantly affect how system growth and franchise activity are represented.
This isn’t a story about Rolling Suds alone; it’s an example of how disclosure formatting and definitional choices can transform ordinary franchise churn into the appearance of steady expansion.
The Evolution of a Definition
When Rolling Suds began franchising, the 2023 Item 7 listed a neat investment range and an "Initial Equipment Package." At the time, franchise materials emphasized a lean, mobile business model seemingly focused on operational efficiency and low overhead.
By 2024, a new line item appeared labeled “Down Payment on Service Vehicle,” though no specific dollar figure was provided. The disclosure instead offered payment ranges and financing assumptions, suggesting that vehicle acquisition had become a more formalized component of the initial investment.
By 2025, that line item was expanded into a detailed description: the required service vehicle was priced between approximately $145,000 and $158,000, typically financed with interest and sourced through an affiliated company, Rolling Suds Products, Inc.
Viewed together, these disclosures illustrate how a franchise system’s operational model, and the way it is presented in the FDD, can evolve rapidly during early growth. What began as a generalized equipment estimate became a defined capital requirement tied to an affiliated supplier relationship.
This progression doesn’t necessarily imply wrongdoing; rather, it highlights how evolving business structures and affiliate relationships can outpace the timing of disclosure updates. Understanding that lag between operational change and formal disclosure is critical for prospective franchisees evaluating fast-scaling systems.
The Missing Franchisee That Started It All
Public information suggests that the evolution of Rolling Suds’ disclosure practices began during the brand’s earliest months of franchising.
Public records and LinkedIn data identify Ariel Jakobovits as an early franchisee who owned and operated Rolling Suds of Austin–Round Rock between May 2023 and October 2023. His Google Business Profile still exists at the time of this publication, showing 21 public reviews ranging from two years ago to just three weeks ago, several of which mention Ariel by name as the person performing the work.
A Facebook page for Rolling Suds of Austin–Round Rock was created on May 25, 2023.
Then-CEO Aaron Harper even featured Ariel on social media platform X on September 26, 2023, calling him “one of our very first franchisees.” The post included a video of Ariel praising the brand and touting the benefits of ownership, released only weeks before he apparently exited the system entirely.
Yet none of this activity appears in Rolling Suds’ official disclosure documents.
The 2024 Item 20 Table 2 reports zero transfers of outlets from franchisees to new owners during 2023.
Table 3 lists two Texas outlets open at both the beginning and end of 2023, with no terminations, non-renewals, reacquisitions, or closures.
Exhibit E seemingly omits Ariel and the named territory entirely.
No franchisee named Ariel Jakobovits appears anywhere in the 2024 FDD. The only Austin-area listings are Rolling Suds of Austin–Westlake and Rolling Suds of Austin–San Marcos. There is no Rolling Suds of Austin–Round Rock in the disclosures, and no North Austin territories are shown in either the 2024 or 2025 Exhibit E.
While FDDs may consolidate or rename territories as systems mature, the absence of any reference to a Round Rock location; despite its documented online presence; raises questions about how short-term or early franchise relationships are represented in disclosure data. This example illustrates how real-world franchise activity can occasionally diverge from the operational data later captured in Item 20, especially during periods of early expansion.
The North Carolina Example: How Definitions Shape Disclosure
A comparison between the 2024 and 2025 Franchise Disclosure Documents shows how differences in definition and reporting criteria can alter the appearance of franchise activity within a single state.
In the 2024 FDD:
Pam Patron was listed with three territories in Durham-North Raleigh and Peter Nordberg with two in Raleigh-Durham. Item 20 Table 5 showed thirteen agreements signed but not open and four projected new openings for the following year and Exhibit E shows 12 total territories. This highlights an important point for prospective franchisees: the FDD uses several distinct terms; agreement, outlet, and territory; that do not always describe the same thing.
Although the 2024 document does not formally define what constitutes an “open” franchise, both Item 7 and Item 11 make clear that operations cannot begin until the required service vehicle is built and delivered. Functionally, a territory does not begin operations until that vehicle arrives, meaning “open” status is tied to the delivery event itself.
This operational dependency may create a data blind spot in theory. Any territory that was sold but never reached the truck-delivery stage might not appear as "open" in Item 20 and therefore might not exist in the system’s performance data at all.
This concept became explicit in the 2025 FDD Item 20 when a footnote appeared beneath Table 1:
“**For purposes of this Item 20, each outlet above represents an open Territory for which the franchisee has acquired a corresponding service vehicle.”
In the 2025 FDD:
Pam and Peter vanish from Exhibit E despite this LinkedIn post by then-CEO Aaron Harper which clearly shows at least Pam had one location open and operating (by all definitions) in fiscal year 2024.
Yet their territories now appear under franchisee group Zachary McKinley, Milo Leakehe, and Caleb Birchell with Imbue Capital, but Item 20 Table 2 reports only one transfer for the entire year in North Carolina, while Table 3 shows zero open at the start, five opened, zero closures, and five open at year-end.
This discrepancy invites a broader question for analysis: when a franchise outlet changes hands or pauses operations before reaching “open” status, how and when should it appear in Item 20? The Rolling Suds filings offer a perhaps clear example of how those definitional nuances could influence the perception of system stability.
The Case of Britt McKenzie
In the 2025 FDD, only one North Carolina franchisee is listed under “Former Franchisees”: Britt McKenzie.
According to the disclosure, Britt purchased two territories but did not open them and exited the system within the same fiscal year. Those same coverage areas later appear under the franchisee group that includes Zachary McKinley, Milo Leakehe, and Caleb Birchell.
The inclusion of this single name stands out because it represents the only recorded exit for the state during a period when other franchise ownership changes are visible across Exhibit E.
It is unclear whether the omission of additional names reflects differences in how transfers were categorized, timing of fiscal-year recognition, or variations in how “open” and “non-open” territories were defined for reporting purposes.
Rather than implying intent, this raises a broader interpretive issue for regulators and prospective buyers: how should franchisors classify territories that were sold but never opened or that changed ownership before reaching operational status?
The Rolling Suds FDDs demonstrate how those classification decisions can significantly shape the narrative of system stability and franchise turnover.
Disclosure Language and the Due Diligence Gap
The question of missing names and unreported ownership changes is not just a matter of technical compliance, it directly affects the accuracy of a prospective franchisee’s due diligence.
From page 57 of the 2025 FDD:
“Exhibit E lists the location of each Rolling Suds franchisee in our System, as well as any franchisees that had an outlet terminated, canceled, not renewed, or that have otherwise voluntarily or involuntarily ceased to do business under the franchise agreement or has not communicated with us within 10 weeks of the date of this Disclosure Document. If you buy this franchise, your contact information may be disclosed to other buyers when you leave the franchise system.”
Nothing in that statement limits inclusion to only those franchisees who received a service vehicle or began operations. The document’s language suggests that anyone who signed an agreement and later ceased to do business should appear in the record.
When those names are missing, so are their stories, and with them, critical insights for anyone evaluating the franchise opportunity. Each name represents real-world data: investment outcomes, operational challenges, and lessons learned. Without those voices reflected in Exhibit E, the franchise system’s historical picture becomes incomplete.
For a prospective investor, that absence makes due diligence harder. It limits access to former franchisees who could speak candidly about their experiences, and it narrows the pool of validation contacts to only current operators; often those still within the franchisor’s orbit.
The result is not simply a technical omission. In my opinion, it is a practical one: the absence of lived experience that every buyer deserves to understand before making a major financial decision.
Beyond North Carolina: A Broader Pattern in the Data
A review of multiple state-level disclosures suggests that these gaps in reporting are not confined to one market. Across several states, franchise ownership changed hands between 2023 and 2025, yet the number of transfers, closures, and reacquisitions recorded in Item 20 appears significantly lower than what can be inferred from Exhibit E.
Florida
Deven Litchfield owned two territories in Tampa and St. Petersburg in 2023. In 2024 he appears as a former franchisee. His territories are now listed under Thomas Barr and Jon Gratton. Item 20 reports only one transfer for the entire state.
Michigan
Larry Panetta owned three territories in 2024 but is listed as a former franchisee in 2025. No new Michigan operators appear, and no data for that state is included in Item 20 tables, leaving open questions about how those territories are being categorized.
Oklahoma
Luke Eves owned three territories in 2024 (Berryhill, Broken Arrow, and Tulsa) and later appears as a former franchisee in 2025. His territories now appear under Tanner Coleman. Item 20 shows one transfer for the year, yet the shift covers three territories.
Texas
In Texas the pattern repeats. Brandon and Alicia McGuire, Michael and Samantha Burkhart, and Andy and Nathalia Miller are all listed as former franchisees in 2025. Their territories now appear under new owners; Brian and Jill Tucker, Morad Alariki and Rafat Mudher, and Mark and Amy McCarty; but Item 20 reports only three total transfers for the state.
Pennsylvania
Jon Troy purchased six territories in 2024 and exited the same year. Item 20 lists no closures, terminations, or ceased operations.
Each of these examples shows how Item 20’s summary tables can understate the number of ownership changes actually reflected in Exhibit E. For an investor conducting due diligence, this distinction matters. Transfer counts provide a signal of franchise stability; when those counts are compressed, it can obscure the pace of franchise turnover.
A note within the franchisor’s 2025 financial statements raises further questions about how such activity is reported. Exhibit C (page 142) references a Notes Payable of $75,526 at a 5 percent interest rate, maturing in 2028, described as a franchise repurchase. Yet Item 20 shows no reacquired outlets for that same fiscal year. While the specific outlet tied to the note is not identified, its existence highlights how different parts of the FDD can tell slightly different stories about franchise system activity.
That detail also raises a practical question: if one franchisee received a structured repurchase arrangement, were similar options offered to others who exited during that same period? For a prospective buyer, understanding how such arrangements are handled can shed light on how the franchisor manages franchisee relationships and long-term system equity.
Inconsistencies like these do not necessarily imply wrongdoing, but they do complicate the due-diligence process. When franchise sales, transfers, and exits are represented differently across exhibits, prospective investors are left with an incomplete view of how the system evolves in practice.
Interpreting the Growth Narrative
The 2025 FDD presents a picture of rapid expansion. According to Item 20, Rolling Suds reported seven outlets open at the end of 2023 and sixty-four at the end of 2024, a net increase of fifty-seven. On its face, that growth seems impressive. The same section also notes one hundred seventy-seven franchise agreements signed but not yet open and sixty-three projected new openings for 2025.
For a prospective franchisee, those numbers may appear to reflect strong system momentum. Yet it is important to understand what these figures actually measure.
A franchise counted as an “agreement signed but not open” represents a business that has not yet begun operations, and may not do so for many months. Each of those unopened territories still contributes to the system’s reported expansion but may not yet be generating revenue or employment.
Operational readiness in this model depends heavily on the delivery of the required service vehicle. Every time an outlet “opens,” a franchisee has purchased a specialized truck from Rolling Suds Products, Inc., an affiliate identified in Item 1 as a required supplier:
"Rolling Suds Products, LLC is owned by our principals and is a required provider of equipment for franchisees.”
These vehicle purchases represent substantial one-time transactions that flow through the affiliate rather than through Rolling Suds Franchising, LLC itself. In Item 8, the franchisor reports that only 17.9 percent of its 2024 revenue came from required purchases, with the remaining 82.1 percent derived from franchise fees, royalties, and services.
This distinction matters for due diligence. While affiliate sales reflect activity within the broader system, they do not necessarily indicate the long-term profitability of individual franchisees or the sustainability of recurring revenue for the franchisor. Rapid growth based on newly signed agreements or required-purchase transactions may temporarily boost top-line numbers without yet demonstrating lasting operational success.
Understanding this dynamic helps investors look beyond surface-level growth metrics. When reviewing any FDD, it is useful to ask how many outlets are operational, how much revenue is tied to ongoing royalties versus one-time sales, and how affiliate relationships influence both.
The Broader Lesson
Franchise disclosure documents are designed to standardize information across brands. Yet as this analysis shows, the meaning of basic terms (“open,” “transfer,” “territory,” or “ceased operations”) can vary depending on how each franchisor defines and applies them.
These definitional differences can have a profound effect on how a franchise system appears to perform. A model that counts openings only when a specific asset is delivered, or that consolidates multi-territory sales into single entries, may present a system that looks stable and growing even when ownership activity tells a more complex story.
For prospective franchisees, these nuances matter. An FDD that seems to show steady expansion may, in reality, reflect a blend of active outlets, pending launches, and early-stage transitions. Understanding how those categories are defined, and where those definitions appear, is essential for accurate due diligence.
In short: the information itself may be accurate, but without context, it can be incomplete. Learning to interpret the language of disclosure is one of the most important skills a franchise investor can develop. Of course, hiring a franchisee-centric attorney in the early stages of the due diligence journey can be invaluable and is highly recommended.
Franchise Reality Check Takeaway
Franchise growth stories are often told in numbers: units opened, territories sold, revenue reported. But behind every number is a definition, and behind every definition is a choice about how to represent the data.
The Rolling Suds filings offer a seemingly clear example of why due diligence means more than reading Item 19 or counting outlets. It means understanding what those outlets represent, how affiliate relationships affect reported revenue, and whether missing or merged data could change your perception of risk.
For anyone considering a franchise investment, ask yourself:
What qualifies as an “open” outlet in this system?
How are multi-territory sales counted or reported?
What portion of franchisor revenue comes from recurring royalties versus one-time fees or required purchases?
And most importantly, are there franchisees whose experiences you cannot see because they no longer appear in the record?
Transparency in franchising depends not only on disclosure but on comprehension. The clearer your understanding of how the data is built, the better equipped you are to make an informed, confident decision.
Franchise Reality Check™ is an independent Oklahoma-based publication providing investigative analysis on franchise systems for public education and transparency. All reports are based on publicly available records and verified sources and are protected under Article II § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the First Amendment, and Oklahoma’s News Media Privilege (12 O.S. § 2506). Opinions expressed are those of the author and constitute fair comment on matters of public concern. Nothing herein constitutes legal, financial, or investment advice.
