1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 

ARUN G. RAO 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

GUSTAV W. EYLER 

Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

LISA K. HSIAO 

Assistant Director 

MARCUS P. SMITH 

Trial Attorney 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 386 

Washington, DC 20044 

(202) 353-9712 

marcus.p.smith@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BURGERIM GROUP USA, INC., 

BURGERIM GROUP, INC., 

and 

OREN LONI, individually and as an 

officer of Burgerim Group USA, Inc. 

and Burgerim Group, Inc., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-CV-825 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND MONETARY 

JUDGMENTS FOR CIVIL 

PENALTIES AND CONSUMER 

REDRESS, AND OTHER RELIEF 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2 

Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and 

authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), 

pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 

15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for its Complaint alleges: 

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b) and 

19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 

45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a), 57b, and the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule entitled 

“Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising,” as amended 

(the “Franchise Rule” or “the Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 436, for permanent injunctive 

relief, monetary relief, civil penalties, and other relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 436. 

SUMMARY 

2. Defendants lure would-be entrepreneurs into paying tens of thousands 

of dollars to open a burger franchise under the trade name “Burgerim.” These franchises require a large upfront investment. Purchasers included veterans and people 

with different backgrounds and business experiences. Many purchasers relied on 

obtaining loans for tens of thousands of dollars to fund their franchise. Defendants, 

however, glossed over the risks of these hefty investments, touting the franchise as 

a “business in a box,” and purporting to offer refunds in the event franchisees 

could not open the restaurant. 

3. The Franchise Rule was designed to help prospective entrepreneurs 

evaluate the risks and benefits of a franchise opportunity with a disclosure document. In marketing and selling Burgerim franchises, Defendants fell woefully short 

of complying with the Rule. Left out of Defendants’ disclosure document was the 

information necessary to enable prospective franchisees to analyze earning repre2 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:3 

sentations or to get unvarnished experiences from prior purchasers. Worse, Defendants muddied the waters by making representations in their disclosure document that contradicted other statements they made to the prospective franchisees. 

4. Defendants sold more than 1,500 Burgerim franchises, but the overwhelming majority of Burgerim franchisees never got their businesses off the 

ground. Hundreds sought to cancel their franchise agreements. In many cases, Defendants did not honor their promises to provide refunds, and in this scheme, have 

bilked aspiring business owners out of millions of dollars. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355, and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). This action 

arises under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 

1395(a), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT 

7. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

8. Misrepresentations of material facts constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

THE FRANCHISE RULE 

9. The Franchise Rule defines a “franchise” as any continuing commercial relationship or arrangement, whatever it may be called, in which the terms of 

the offer or contract specify, or the franchise seller promises or represents, orally or 

in writing, that: 

a) The franchisee will obtain the right to operate a business that is identified or 

associated with the franchisor’s trademark, or to offer, sell, or distribute 

goods, services, or commodities that are identified or associated with 

the franchisor’s trademark; 

3 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4 

b) The franchisor will exert or has authority to exert a significant degree of 

control over the franchisee’s method of operation, or to provide significant 

assistance in the franchisee’s method of operation; and 

c) As a condition of obtaining or commencing operation of the franchise, 

the franchisee makes a required payment or commits to make a required 

payment to the franchisor or its affiliate. 16 C.F.R. § 436.1(h). 

10. Under the Franchise Rule, a “franchise seller” is a person that offers 

for sale, sells, or arranges for the sale of a franchise. The term encompasses the 

franchisor and the franchisor’s employees, representatives, agents, subfranchisors, 

and third-party brokers who are involved in franchise sales activities. It does not 

include existing franchisees who sell only their own outlet and who are otherwise 

not engaged in franchise sales on behalf of the franchisor. 16 C.F.R. § 436.1(j). 

11. A “franchisor” means any person who grants a franchise and participates in the franchise relationship. Unless otherwise stated, it includes sub franchisors. For purposes of this definition, a “subfranchisor” means a person who functions as a franchisor by engaging in both pre-sale activities and post-sale performance. 16 C.F.R. § 436.1(k). 

12. The Franchise Rule requires a franchisor to provide prospective franchisees with a basic Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”) containing twentythree categories (or “Items”) of information, including information about: the franchisor and its affiliates (Item 1); prior or pending litigation (Item 3); the initial fee 

paid by franchisees, including conditions under which the fee is refundable (Item 

5); franchisee obligations to purchase or lease goods and services from designated 

suppliers and payments to the franchisor from such suppliers based on those purchases (Item 8); franchise endorsement by public figures (Item 18); the assistance 

provided by the franchisor (Item 11); and statistical information on the number of 

4 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5 

company-owned and franchisee-owned outlets in the franchisor’s system, including the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of existing franchisees (Item 20). 

16 C.F.R. § 436.5(a)-(w). 

13. The FDD must be current (16 C.F.R. § 436.2(a)) and marked with an 

issuance date (16 C.F.R. § 436.3(e)(6)). Additional disclosures are required if the 

franchisor elects to make any financial performance representations, such as including those financial performance representations in Item 19 of the franchisor’s 

FDD, among other things. 16 C.F.R. § 436.9(c). Franchise sellers are prohibited 

from making any representations that contradict the information required to be disclosed in the FDD. 16 C.F.R. § 436.9(a). 

14. Pursuant to Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(3), and 

subparts B, D, and F, 16 C.F.R. § 436.2, § 436.6(a), and § 436.9, violations of the 

Franchise Rule constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

15. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified by Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 

28 U.S.C. § 2461, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599 (2015), and Section 1.98(d) of the 

FTC’s Rule of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(d), authorizes this Court to award monetary civil penalties of not more than $46,517 for each violation of the Franchise 

Rule assessed after January 10, 2022, including penalties whose associated violation predated January 10, 2022, that is made with actual knowledge or knowledge 

fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule. 

DEFENDANTS 

16. Defendant Burgerim Group USA, Inc. (“BIMGUSA”) is a California 

corporation with its principal place of business at 23945 Calabasas Road, Calabasas, California 91302. BIMGUSA sells burger restaurant franchises under the 

5 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6 

trade name “Burgerim.” BIMGUSA transacts or has transacted business in this 

District and throughout the United States. At all times relevant to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, BIMGUSA has advertised, marketed, distributed or sold Burgerim franchises to consumers throughout the United States. 

17. Defendant Burgerim Group, Inc. (“BIMG”) is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business at 23945 Calabasas Road, Calabasas, California 

91302. BIMG transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout 

the United States. Since 2019, BIMG, acting alone or in concert with others, has 

advertised, marketed, distributed or sold Burgerim franchises to consumers 

throughout the United States. 

18. Defendant Oren Loni (“Loni”) was at all relevant times the chief executive officer of BIMGUSA and BIMG (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”). 

Acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had 

the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Corporate Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Loni has advertised, marketed, distributed or sold Burgerim franchises to consumers throughout the United States. At all times material to this Complaint, Loni formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Corporate Defendants. Loni has been a signatory on BIMGUSA and BIMG 

bank accounts, communicated with prospective and existing franchisees about the 

Burgerim franchise opportunity, entered into agreements, and negotiated contracts 

with franchisees. In connection with the matters alleged herein, Loni transacts or 

has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

19. Defendants BIMGUSA and BIMG have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in the deceptive and unlawful acts and other violations of law 

alleged below. BIMGUSA was incorporated in California in October 2014 with its 

initial principal place of business at 16861 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 303, Encino, 

6 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7 

California 91436. BIMG was incorporated in Delaware in June 2019 with its principal place of business at the same address. On September 4, 2019, pursuant to 

California Corporations Code sections 201(b) and 2106(b), and California Code of 

Regulations sections 21003-21004, Oren Loni, as CEO of BIMGUSA, granted permission to BIMG to do business in California under that name. Since at least August 2019, BIMG has participated in the operation of the Burgerim franchise business, including, but not limited to, communicating with and managing the business 

relationships with BIMGUSA franchisees, enforcing agreements entered into by 

BIMGUSA and its franchisees; receiving rebate payments sent to BIMGUSA under agreements with product and service suppliers; and making payments to employees or former employees of BIMGUSA. 

20. Corporate Defendants have conducted the business practices described below through interrelated companies that have common management; coordinated business functions; shared office space, employees and resources; shared 

revenues, and comingled funds. Because these Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of them is liable for the acts and practices as alleged below. 

COMMERCE 

21. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in 

Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

22. Since at least 2016, Defendants BIMGUSA and Oren Loni, and since 

2019, Defendant BIMG, have offered and sold franchises of Burgerim, a fast-casual restaurant specializing in multiple types of hamburgers. 

23. For those interested in opening a Burgerim franchise, the investment 

of time and money is quite substantial. In many instances, franchisees paid De7 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8 

fendants a franchise fee between $50,000 and $70,000 for a single franchise location. In many instances, Defendants offered incentives to purchase more than one 

Burgerim franchise, such as a discounted franchise fee of $40,000 per franchise. 

To secure the money to pay the franchise fees, many prospective franchisees have 

sought and taken out loans backed by the Small Business Administration or a commercial bank lender. 

24. Defendants have targeted military veterans, recruiting them to the 

franchise by offering them, in many instances, a $10,000 to $15,000 discount off 

the franchise fee for a single Burgerim franchise. In many instances, Defendants 

have incentivized veterans to purchase more than one location by offering a discount to veterans who purchased multiple locations. 

25. In exchange for the franchise fee, Defendants provided franchisees the 

right to establish and operate a Burgerim restaurant. The fee does not include other 

costs of opening or operating the franchise, such as securing a location, building 

out the restaurant, outfitting it with necessary equipment, and obtaining products 

and supplies. Defendants have estimated that it may cost franchisees more than 

$600,000 to begin operation of a Burgerim franchise. 

26. Defendants control the franchise operations by, among other things, 

approving sites for Burgerim restaurant locations, imposing building design specifications, and requiring franchisees to sell specific items, use certain equipment, 

and purchase only approved products and supplies. 

27. Franchisees who paid Defendants the franchise fee come from different backgrounds and business experiences. In many instances, Burgerim franchisees had no prior experience running a restaurant before signing up to be a 

Burgerim franchisee. 

28. Defendants make it a point to undersell the risks and difficulties of 

opening a franchise. In their online and in-person marketing, Defendants represent 

8 
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:9 

that their franchise is a “business in a box,” which prospective franchisees do not 

need any prior business experience to operate. 

29. Anticipating that inexperienced franchisees may be intimidated by the 

process, Defendants represent they will assist franchisees every step of the way. 

For example, Defendants represent in the Burgerim “Brand Book,” which they provide to prospective franchisees, that “...[o]ur Burgerim Team walks you through 

the entire process of becoming a restaurateur [sic].” The Brand Book also states, 

among other things, that Defendants will assist franchisees with “locking in a 

prime location” for their restaurant, obtaining financing, and “acquiring the architect and contractors, as well as the different licenses needed to open the restaurant.” Defendants also promise to provide ongoing support to franchisees. 

30. Defendants also make the following representations on their website, 

www.burgerim.com: 

 “All you need is the will to succeed. Our international fast food franchising 

team paves the way for you to become a thriving business owner. We’ll help 

you customize your location, hire a small team, and generate wealth.” 

 “Burgerim’s experienced global team has conducted extensive research into 

the US fast casual dining market and has developed training, branding and 

operations protocols designed to empower franchise owners and support 

them in operating successful and profitable Burgerim stores in their communities.” 

31. In many instances, throughout the sales process, Defendants have 

pitched prospective franchisees on the financial performance of their franchise opportunity. Defendants have made verbal representations about the financial performance of existing locations and prospective franchisees’ likely performance, such 

as estimates for weekly or monthly sales figures and break-even points. For example, a Burgerim representative told one franchisee that the break-even point for 

9 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:10 

open Burgerim stores was $50,000 per month and that they were all hitting that 

number in two weeks or sooner. 

32. Further downplaying the financial risk of paying the franchise fees, in 

many instances, Defendants, verbally or in writing, have represented to prospective 

and existing franchisees that if they were unable to obtain financing or secure a 

restaurant location, Defendants would refund the prospective franchisees their 

franchise fees. In some instances, Defendants entered into written refund and cancellation agreements with existing franchisees whereby Defendants agreed to provide a refund of the franchise fees. In exchange, the franchisees agreed, among 

other things, not to disparage Defendants. 

33. For many franchisees who paid franchise fees to Burgerim, Defendants’ promises were illusory. In numerous instances, franchisees could not secure 

the financing necessary to pay necessary costs, such as conducting the build out of 

the restaurant to the specifications demanded by Defendants. Other franchisees 

could not secure a restaurant location. 

34. In many cases, Defendants did not provide the promised refunds to 

franchisees who requested one. Even franchisees who persisted with repeated requests spanning several months often were unable to obtain a refund. For example, 

some franchisees who were unable to secure financing, and had a signed letter 

from Oren Loni promising that Burgerim would refund their franchise fee under 

such circumstances, spent more than a year trying to get their money back to no 

avail. Ultimately, a Burgerim representative told them that in order to get their 

money back, they would have to sign a new document, which included a non-disparagement clause and other obligations. 

35. Since 2017 Burgerim has sold more than 1,500 franchises across the 

United States, for which Defendants received tens of millions of dollars. Despite 

Defendants receiving franchise fee payments from prospective franchisees for the 

right to open a Burgerim franchise, the majority of those franchises never opened. 

10 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:11 

36. In addition to their misrepresentations and broken promises, Defendants withheld material information required by the Franchise Rule. The Franchise 

Rule requires franchisors to provide aspiring entrepreneurs with a FDD containing 

certain mandatory disclosures, a key purpose of which is to enable prospective 

franchisees to assess the risks of the paying the franchise fee and entering into a 

franchise agreement. 

37. For example, in numerous instances, Defendants’ FDDs did not include in Item 2 the name and position of the franchisor’s principals or any other individuals who would have management responsibility relating to the sale or operation of the franchises, impeding prospective franchisees from conducting appropriate due diligence. 

38. Defendants’ FDDs, in numerous instances, did not provide contact information for prior purchasers as required in Item 20, impeding prospective franchisees from contacting other franchisees and learning about their experiences with 

Defendants. 

39. Defendants failed to include in Item 19 of the FDDs, the verbal financial performance representations they provided to prospective franchisees. In fact, 

Defendants not only failed to include this required information, they contradicted 

their verbal representations by stating in the FDDs that no such representations had 

been made. 

40. Despite Defendants’ representations that under certain conditions they 

would refund the franchisees’ franchise fees, in numerous instances, Item 5 of Defendants’ FDDs did not identify all such conditions. In fact, not only did Defendants fail to include all such conditions, but in certain instances, the FDDs contradicted Defendants’ own representations by stating the franchise fee was non-refundable. 

41. Defendants’ unlawful activities have harmed people across the country. Many franchisees find themselves crushed by substantial debt or ruined credit, 

11 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:12 

in addition to the time and effort they exerted to make their entrepreneurial aspirations a reality. 

42. In early 2020, the Maryland Attorney General’s office, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, and Indiana’s Secretary of State each issued orders against BIMGUSA that prohibit it from selling franchises in their respective states based upon various violations of their respective state franchise 

laws. In addition, in February 2021, the Commissioner of Financial Protection and 

Innovation for the State of California issued a citation and cease and desist order 

against Defendants for injunctive and monetary relief for violations of California 

law. 

43. Defendants continue to advertise the Burgerim franchise opportunity 

on their website, burgerim.com. 

44. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the 

FTC has reason to believe that Defendants continue to violate or are about to violate laws enforced by the Commission. 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5 OF FTC ACT 

COUNT I 

45. Paragraphs 1-44 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

46. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of Burgerim franchises, Defendants have made 

false or misleading representations of material facts to franchisees. 

47. For example, Burgerim represented directly, or indirectly, expressly 

or by implication, that it will provide a refund of the franchise fee to franchisees 

who are unable to secure financing or a restaurant location. In fact, in numerous instances where Defendants represented that Burgerim would provide a refund of the 

franchise fee to franchisees who were unable to secure financing or a restaurant location, Defendants did not refund the franchise fee. 

12 
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:13 

48. Therefore, Defendants have made false or misleading representations 

of material facts that constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 

5(a) of the FTC Act. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FRANCHISE RULE 

COUNT II 

Disclosure Violations 

49. Paragraphs 1-48 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

50. The Burgerim opportunity sold by Defendants is a “franchise” pursuant to the Franchise Rule. 

51. Defendants are “franchise sellers” pursuant to the Franchise Rule. 

52. Defendants are “franchisors” pursuant to the Franchise Rule. 

53. In many instances, Defendants furnish prospective franchisees with 

disclosures that fail to comply with the FTC’s Franchise Rule’s disclosure requirements. 

54. Defendants had knowledge of the requirements of the Franchise Rule 

as evidenced by the fact that they provided an FDD to prospective franchisees. 

55. In connection with the offering for sale and sale of franchises, as 

“franchise” is defined in 16 C.F.R. § 436.1(h), in many instances, Defendants furnish prospective franchisees with FDDs that fail to: (1) include all of the information required by the Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.5 and (2) follow the instructions for preparing disclosure documents set forth in 16 C.F.R. §§ 436.3 and 

436.6 of the Franchise Rule. For example, in certain instances Defendants failed to 

disclose the following: 

a) the issuance date of each FDD (16 C.F.R. § 436.3(e)(6)); 

b) the name and principal business address of any affiliates that offer franchises in any line of business (Item 1) (16 C.F.R. § 436.5(a)(1)); 

13 
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14 

c) the prior business experience of any affiliates that offer any franchises in 

any line of business (Item 1) (16 C.F.R. § 436.5(a)(7)); 

d) the name and position of the franchisor’s directors, trustees, general partners, principal officers, and any other individuals who will have management responsibility relating to the sale or operation of the franchises 

(Item 2) (16 C.F.R. § 436.5(b)); 

e) any conditions under which the initial fees are refundable (Item 5) 

(16 C.F.R. § 436.5(e)); 

f) information regarding the revenue the franchisor received from required 

purchases or leases by franchisees (Item 8) (16 C.F.R. § 436.5(h)(6)); and 

g) the telephone numbers of each current franchisee’s outlets, and the name, 

city and state, and current business telephone number or, if unknown, the 

last known home telephone number of every franchisee who voluntarily 

or involuntarily ceased to do business under the franchise agreement during the most recently completed fiscal year or who has not communicated 

with the franchisor within 10 weeks of the disclosure document issuance 

date (Item 20) (16 C.F.R. § 436.5(t)(4)-(5)). 

56. Therefore, Defendants have violated subpart C, 16 C.F.R. §§ 436.3, 

436.5, and subpart D, 16 C.F.R. § 436.6, of the Franchise Rule with the knowledge 

required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

COUNT III 

Dissemination of Financial Performance Representations Not Included in FDD 

57. Paragraphs 1-56 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

58. Section 436.9(c) of the Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.9(c), requires 

a franchisor to include any and all financial performance representations in Item 19 

of the franchisor’s FDD. 

14 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:15 

59. In connection with the offering for sale and sale of franchises, as 

“franchise” is defined in section 436.1(h) of the Franchise Rule, Defendants disseminated financial performance representations to prospective franchisees while 

failing to include those representations in Item 19 of Defendant BIMGUSA’s FDD 

and failing to provide the other information and statements as required by Section 

436.9(c) of the Franchise Rule. 

60. Therefore, Defendants have violated section 436.9(c) of the Franchise 

Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.9(c) and Section 5(a) of the FTC Act with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

COUNT IV 

Claims or Representations that Contradict a Required Disclosure 

61. Paragraphs 1-60 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

62. Section 436.9(a) of the Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.9(a), prohibits 

a franchisor from making any claim or representation orally, visually, or in writing 

that contradicts the information required to be disclosed by the Franchise Rule. 

63. In connection with the offering for sale and sale of franchises, as 

“franchise” is defined in Section 436.1(h) of the Franchise Rule, Defendants made 

numerous representations contradicting disclosures made in their FDD, including 

but not limited to making representations to prospective or existing franchisees: 

a) that they could obtain refunds, in certain circumstances, of their franchise fees; 

b) regarding the financial performance of already-open franchise locations 

and the income (gross and net) that prospective franchisees could expect 

to make; and 

c) regarding Defendants’ obligations to provide assistance in identifying a 

location, obtaining financing, constructing, and remodeling the franchise 

premises. 

15 
 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 Filed 02/07/22 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:16 

64. Therefore, Defendants have violated Section 436.9(a) of the Franchise 

Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.9(a), and Section 5(a) of the FTC Act with the knowledge 

required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

65. Consumers have suffered or will suffer substantial monetary loss as a 

result of Defendants’ violation of the Franchise Rule and the FTC Act. Absent injunctive relief by the Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers 

and harm the public interest in the offer and sale of franchises. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court: 

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC 

Act and Franchise Rule by Defendants; 

B. Award monetary and other equitable relief within the Court’s power to 

grant; 

C. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties from each Defendant for 

every violation of the Franchise Rule; and 

D. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and 

proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to 

Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

16 
 

 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:22-cv-00825 Document 1 

Dated: February 7, 2022 

FOR FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION: 

Christine M. Todaro 

Christopher E. Brown 

Attorneys 

Federal Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20580 

202-326-3711 (Todaro) 

202-326-2825 (Brown) 

202-326- 3395 (fax) 

ctodaro@ftc.gov 

cbrown3@ftc.gov 

Filed 02/07/22 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17

 Respectfully submitted, 

FOR PLAINTIFF 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 

ARUN G. RAO 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

GUSTAV W. EYLER 

Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

LISA K. HSIAO 

Assistant Director 

By: /s/ Marcus P. Smith 

Marcus P. Smith 

Trial Attorney 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 386 

Washington, DC 20044 

(202) 353-9712 

marcus.p.smith@usdoj.gov 

17