A Franchisee Bill of Rights Is Not a Legal Document. Here Is Why It Still Matters.
The short answer
In January 2026, an independent association of McDonald's operators approved a fifteen-point franchisee bill of rights, including the right to set prices. It creates no enforceable rights, because a franchisee association cannot amend anyone's franchise agreement. What it does is establish a documented, collective position at a moment when three separate forces, the FTC, several state legislatures, and the renewal cycle itself, are all newly attentive to franchisor control.
Why it comes up
Franchisees are structurally disorganized. Each one signs the same contract separately, at a different time, with no ability to bargain collectively and, in most systems, a contractual relationship that runs only vertically to the franchisor. Franchisor-recognized advisory councils exist in most large systems, but they are creatures of the franchisor.
Independent associations are the exception, and they exist precisely because the vertical structure leaves franchisees without a way to say anything together.
What happened
The National Owners Association was formed in October 2018, reported at the time as the first independent, self-funded franchisee association in McDonald's United States history. More than four hundred operators met in Tampa and voted to form it. By March 2023 it reported more than one thousand members, in a system with more than two thousand United States franchisees. It is distinct from the National Franchisee Leadership Alliance, which is the company-recognized elected operator body.
In January 2026, following McDonald's addition of a value criterion to its franchising standards, the association approved a list of fifteen standards it considers vital to fair franchising, including the right to set prices.
Our take: the document has no legal force, and three reasons it matters anyway
Start with the plain answer. A franchisee bill of rights is not a contract, a statute, or a rule. Nobody is bound by it. Franchise agreements are individually negotiated and individually signed, and most contain integration clauses that foreclose reliance on anything outside the four corners of the document. An association's declaration changes none of that.
Three things give it weight regardless.
One. There is a live federal record, and it is built from franchisee statements. The FTC's 2023 Request for Information on franchisor control over franchisees and workers drew, by the agency's own account, more than five thousand submissions, of which staff reviewed over two thousand publicly posted comments spanning more than one hundred and fifty brands. The resulting 2024 Issue Spotlight catalogued the leading complaint categories, including unilateral operating manual changes, fees and royalties, mandatory supply restrictions, renewal and non-negotiable contract terms, and fear of retaliation, and it documented franchisors controlling operations through mandatory operating hours and required price ranges.
A collective, documented franchisee position is an input into that process. The Franchise Rule review opened in February 2019 remains open. Whether it produces anything is genuinely uncertain, and the 2024 policy statement issued alongside the Spotlight passed on a three to two vote with two commissioners dissenting, one of whom now chairs the Commission. But the record is being built, and the record is made of exactly this kind of material.
Two. States are legislating, and one of the recurring provisions is the right to associate. Recent trade reporting describes franchise bills in several states, including provisions protecting franchisees' right to form associations, a ban on post-termination non-competes, and good cause plus notice requirements for termination and nonrenewal. That is the first meaningful state-level franchise legislative activity in years, and the right-to-associate provisions speak directly to the concern franchisee groups have voiced about retaliation for participating in owner-only meetings.
Three. And this is the one that actually operates today: it changes the evidentiary picture. A franchisor's standard response to a franchisee complaint is that it is an outlier. A documented position adopted by an association representing a substantial share of the system is harder to characterize that way. In a dispute over whether a standard was applied uniformly, whether a nonrenewal was pretextual, or whether a franchisor's discretion was exercised in good faith, contemporaneous evidence of a system-wide objection is not dispositive but it is not nothing.
The candid limit. None of this helps an individual franchisee facing an individual renewal decision next quarter. Association advocacy operates on a legislative and regulatory timescale. Contract deadlines do not. A franchisee whose renewal is at risk needs to read the renewal conditions in Item 17 and the corresponding contract sections, and to understand what standards scores actually control, which is the subject of the companion post to this one.
What it means practically
Participation in an independent association is protected in some states and under some agreements, but there is no general nationwide protection, so check the governing state law and the agreement. Some agreements contain non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions that a franchisor could read as reaching association activity. The FTC's 2024 policy statement takes the position that contract terms barring franchisees from reporting potential law violations to the government are unfair, unenforceable, and illegal. That addresses government reporting specifically, not association activity generally, and the distinction matters.
Do not treat a bill of rights as a defense. If a franchisor asserts a default, the answer is in the franchise agreement, not in a declaration of principles.
Franchisors should read this as information rather than as a threat. A documented list of fifteen items is a franchisee body telling a franchisor exactly what it cares about, in writing, in advance. Systems that treat that as intelligence tend to have fewer disputes than systems that treat it as insubordination.
When to call a lawyer
Before responding to a franchisor inquiry about association activity. Before a renewal cycle in which standards performance is in question. And before a franchisee group commits anything to writing that will be read later by a regulator, a court, or the franchisor.
Why this is not a do-it-yourself problem
Collective franchisee action sits on an awkward legal seam. The activity is generally lawful, and in several states is becoming expressly protected, but the franchise agreement usually contains confidentiality, non-disparagement, and cooperation provisions drafted before anyone contemplated an independent association, and the franchisor's reading of those provisions is not always the obvious one. There are also antitrust considerations when competitors in the same system discuss pricing, which is precisely the subject at issue here, and those considerations are real regardless of how sympathetic the underlying grievance is. Getting the participation right, and getting the documents right, is a different exercise than being right on the merits.
Talk to us
HDD Law Firm represents franchisees and franchisors in franchise disputes and transactions in the Florida state courts, the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida, and the Eleventh Circuit. If you are evaluating your position within a franchise system, contact us to discuss your matter.
Sources
● Nation's Restaurant News coverage of the franchisee bill of rights (January 28, 2026)
● McDonald's franchisees may take their complaints to the FTC, Restaurant Business (March 14, 2023)
● FTC, Issue Spotlight: Risks to Small Business Success in Franchising
● FTC, Policy Statement on Franchisors' Use of Contract Provisions
● FTC, Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Parts 436 and 437
● From Maryland to Arizona, States Consider New Franchise Legislation, Franchise Times
Disclaimer
This post discusses publicly reported legal developments for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney client relationship, and it does not reflect the firm’s position in any pending matter. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and the governing law of the relevant jurisdiction.