Two Open Shops, 59 Signed Agreements: The FTC's Case Against Qargo Coffee

The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against coffee shop franchise Qargo Coffee and its founders for failing to disclose critical information required by the agency's Franchise Rule, including one founder's ties to the now-defunct burger franchise Burgerim, leaving prospective franchisees in the dark when deciding whether to invest.DOCUMENTED

The case is only the second in recent years in which the FTC has alleged violations of the Franchise Rule, following the agency's 2022 lawsuit against Burgerim itself.DOCUMENTED

Franchisees left in the dark

"Before franchisees take on the risk and investment of starting a business, they deserve to know basic information about the opportunity upfront — from the franchise's overall financial health to the time it would take to set up shop," an FTC official said in announcing the case.DOCUMENTED The FTC's Franchise Rule requires franchisors to provide prospective franchisees with a Franchise Disclosure Document, or FDD, containing standardized information about the company's finances, litigation history, and the realistic prospects of opening and operating a unit — information a prospective owner needs to evaluate whether the investment makes sense.DOCUMENTED

The FTC's complaint alleges Qargo and its founders violated that rule by failing to disclose, among other things, a founder's history with Burgerim, a burger franchise chain that collapsed after the FTC sued its own founder in 2022 for defrauding some 1,500 franchisees of millions of dollars in franchise fees.DOCUMENTED

The gap between signed agreements and open stores

Founded in 2020, Qargo had been franchising nationally since May of that year, according to the complaint, and signed 59 franchise and distribution agreements between the beginning of 2021 and October 2023 — with operators paying over $1.25 million combined to open a shop.DOCUMENTED Despite signing nearly 60 agreements, franchised growth at Qargo was slow: the company listed only two franchised units open at the end of 2023, according to its own most recent Franchise Disclosure Document, alongside a reported 22 units sold-but-not-open.DOCUMENTED

"These representations are false, as Defendants are keenly aware that their franchisees have either failed to open at all, or have taken much, much longer to open," the Commission said in its complaint, addressing Qargo's marketing claims about how quickly a franchisee could expect to be up and running.DOCUMENTED

What the proposed order requires

The FTC's proposed order imposes a $1.3 million judgment against Qargo and its officers Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Bastorous, and Samir Shenouda, but requires payment of only $30,000 due to their inability to pay the larger amount, with the remaining balance suspended unless a court later finds the defendants misrepresented their financial condition to the FTC.DOCUMENTED

Beyond the monetary component, the order requires Qargo and its founders to provide written notice to franchisees and licensees informing them of their right to rescind their contracts without penalty; prohibits the defendants from enforcing or threatening to enforce any noncompete agreement or provision against any franchisee or licensee who rescinds their contract; prohibits misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of any fact material to prospective franchisees; and requires the defendants to comply going forward with the Franchise Rule, including providing FDDs to any prospective franchisees.DOCUMENTED

Qargo signed nearly 60 franchise agreements and collected over $1.25 million in fees — while only two franchised shops had actually opened by the end of 2023.

Why franchise disclosure rules exist

The Franchise Rule's disclosure requirements exist precisely because a prospective franchisee is typically investing personal savings, and sometimes taking on debt, based largely on information the franchisor itself controls and provides — financial health, prior litigation, and realistic timelines to profitability are not things an outside buyer can easily verify independently before signing.REVIEWED A founder's undisclosed history with a previous franchise collapse is exactly the kind of fact the rule is designed to surface, since it bears directly on how much confidence a prospective franchisee should place in that same person's new venture.REVIEWED

The Commission voted 5-0 to authorize the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order, which were filed in federal court. FTC attorneys Christine M. Todaro and Josh Doan of the Bureau of Consumer Protection led the matter.DOCUMENTED

Only the second Franchise Rule case in nearly two decades

The FTC's action against Qargo is notable for its rarity: it is only the second time in nearly two decades that the agency has filed a complaint specifically alleging violations of the Franchise Rule, following the 2022 case against Burgerim.REVIEWED The Franchise Rule itself is not new — its disclosure requirements have applied to franchise sales for decades — but direct FTC enforcement actions citing the rule are far less common than the broader universe of franchise-related litigation, which more often plays out as private lawsuits between individual franchisees and their franchisors rather than federal agency action.REVIEWED

That rarity may reflect the practical difficulty of building a Franchise Rule case: establishing that a company failed to disclose specific required information to each of dozens of individual franchisees, and that the omission was material to their investment decision, requires assembling records and testimony that can span years and multiple sales cycles.REVIEWED The Qargo case's foundation — a founder's undisclosed history with a well-documented prior franchise collapse — offered a comparatively clear-cut example of exactly the kind of omission the rule is designed to prevent.REVIEWED

For prospective franchise buyers generally, the case underscores a simple but often overlooked step: reviewing a franchisor's Franchise Disclosure Document in full, including its litigation history and the backgrounds of its key officers, before signing any agreement or paying any franchise fee — since that document is often the only formal, legally required channel through which a prospective buyer learns facts the franchisor might otherwise have every incentive to omit.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.