What Franchisors Fear About Disclosure Analysis

Spoiler: It isn’t the analysis. It’s the truth.

I’ve spent a lot of time digging through hundreds of Franchise Disclosure Documents and publishing independent Reality Reports that break down what franchisors would rather prospective franchisees not notice. These reports are factual, publicly sourced, and built on one simple principle: if you’re asking people to invest six figures and commit their lives to your brand, you owe them transparency.

But here’s the recurring theme: most franchisors don’t see transparency as an asset. They see it as a threat.

And their immediate reaction is rarely curiosity. Aside from one notable exception (Rolling Suds), it’s not, “Thank you, let’s talk about ways to improve our disclosures.” It’s not even, “Interesting point, here’s some context.” No.

It’s panic. It’s legal letters. It’s accusations of defamation for analyzing their own public documents.

Let that sink in.

Franchisors who voluntarily prepared and publicly filed required disclosures are sending cease and desist letters because someone read those disclosures and published the connected dots for prospective buyers.

What are they so afraid of?

If the analysis is wrong, they could simply ask for corrections.

If the analysis is right, they could simply accept it and make transparency in their renewal documents a priority.

But instead, they choose the third path: silence it.

And that tells us everything we need to know.

The Disconnect

Most franchisors will say: “We are passionate about our franchisees’ success. We believe in our system.”

Great. If that’s true, why is acknowledging weak disclosure data such a threat? Why do brand executives insist that calling attention to termination rates, undisclosed affiliates, or missing financial performance representations is an attack?

In my opinion, it isn’t an attack. It’s accountability.

The fact is, if your franchise system can only remain appealing to investors in the absence of honest scrutiny, that is an indictment of the system itself.

Reality check: A strong brand doesn’t crumble under analysis. Only a weak one does. That goes for CEO’s too.

The Patrick Doyle Standard

Let’s look beyond franchising for a minute.

In 2009, Domino’s Pizza was losing the confidence of its customer base. Patrick Doyle, the CEO at the time, made a bold move. He publicly acknowledged that their product was not good enough. He didn’t blame consumers. He didn’t call the negative feedback “defamatory.” He didn’t start handing out cease and desist letters to people who said the crust tasted like cardboard.

Doyle went on record. He said, “We hear you. You’re right. We’re fixing it.”

It was revolutionary. It was honest. And it worked. As a franchisee during that time, I can say I was terrified. But I trusted leadership and went on to break sales records year over year until my exit.

Domino’s turned their lowest moment into a relaunch. Today, they are the global leader in pizza delivery.

That’s what leadership looks like.

Silencing Franchisees Is Not Leadership

We are now in an era where franchisees are connecting directly. They talk. They share. They validate. They are no longer isolated voices at the mercy of one-way narratives.

Some franchisors still think they can control the story through fear and intimidation. They send cease and desist letters to their own operators for being honest in validation calls or sharing adverse facts with journalists. They troll LinkedIn and Reddit to track down “negative comments” from their anonymous franchisees.

They call factual commentary “defamation” and honest communication “tortious interference.”

Ask yourself: what are they protecting? And who are they protecting it from?

Because this is not how you build trust. This is how you burn bridges.

The Real Defamation Problem

Let’s be very clear. Defamation is not reading a disclosure document and pointing out what it contains. It is not contextualizing Item 7 costs or publishing FPR discrepancies. It is not quoting a public order or a cease and desist letter issued by a regulator.

It is not defamation to say, “This disclosure raises questions.”

What might veer into defamation? Suggesting that a franchisee was “convicted of fraud” when there is no record of such a conviction. That is defamation. And it is happening inside franchising, regularly weaponized by leaders who should do better.

Franchisors cannot claim to be models of integrity while lying about the people they franchise with or using the law not to protect reputations, but to suppress legitimate concerns.

A Call to Shift

Here is my challenge to franchisors: stop fearing your own disclosures.

Embrace the opportunity to do better. Identify where your agreements create unnecessary risk. Fix broken validation pipelines. Expand your Item 19 to show real historical performance, not just outliers.

Franchisees are not the enemy. Franchise transparency is not a threat. Independent analysis should not be met with panic.

What will happen if you embrace clarity? Will nobody buy your franchise if you told the truth?

Or will you build the trust and credibility you say you value?

A good leader does not rely on fear. A good leader opens the floor to conversations about improvement.

You can attack the analysis. Or you can improve the disclosure. You cannot do both.

Conclusion

This is not an anti-franchisor message. This is a pro-transparency message. The best franchisors will welcome it. They already do.

The others will keep sending letters.

At Franchise Reality Check™, I’m not here to destroy brands. I’m here to help franchisees protect themselves, and help franchisors win trust the right way: with transparency.

That is not defamation. That is service.

If the truth feels like an attack, that is not about the truth. It’s about why it was hidden in the first place.

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.