Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6551

Bill Overview

Title: To provide a private right of action for persons harmed by violations of the Franchise Rule of the Federal Trade Commission, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill creates a private right of action for individuals harmed by violations of the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule. The rule requires franchisors to disclose certain relevant information to prospective franchisees.

Sponsors: Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]

Target Audience

Population: Prospective and current franchisees impacted by violations of the Franchise Rule

Estimated Size: 1500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Franchise Owner (Dallas, Texas)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is great because it will make companies more responsible for what they tell us about the business upfront.
  • I feel more secure knowing that there's a legal path to follow if I get hurt due to lack of information.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 5 4

Restaurateur (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy seems helpful for newcomers, but I have no immediate need for it.
  • Although it might drive franchisors to be more transparent, as a seasoned owner, I've already navigated these issues.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 5 3

Aspiring Franchisee (Sacramento, California)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy directly affects my current search for franchises.
  • It's reassuring to know there's a mechanism in place to hold franchisors accountable, should anything go wrong.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Franchisor (Miami, Florida)

Age: 43 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy introduces more accountability for us, which isn't a bad thing.
  • We already practice transparency, but it will make the industry more robust overall.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Retired Corporate Executive (New York, New York)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is excellent because it strengthens the resources available to franchisees.
  • However, I myself will not be directly impacted as my involvement is mostly advisory.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 8 8

Marketing Specialist (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The ability to pursue legal action is an empowering change.
  • If I face issues, knowing that there's a recourse makes me more comfortable stepping into franchising.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Independent Franchise Consultant (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This new policy means I can guide prospective franchisees more confidently.
  • An effective legal backup strengthens their negotiating position with franchisors.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Franchise Area Developer (Nashville, Tennessee)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy encourages us to be even more diligent.
  • It might slightly change the way we operate, especially with our disclosures.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 7

Legal Advisor for Small Businesses (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy provides clear legal avenues for franchisees, making my role more defined and structured.
  • It could lead to an increase in cases seeking my services.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Entrepreneur (Austin, Texas)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It boosts my confidence knowing there's legal support against misinformation.
  • The policy should essentially make franchising a more transparent venture.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations