USA – ILLINOIS Law and Practice Contributed by: Carmen D. Caruso, Bill Whitner and Gage Meyers, Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm
Cooling-Off Period There is no separate cooling-off period distinct from the 14-day pre-signing disclosure window; the Act does not impose an additional waiting period after signing. No Explicit Translation Obligation The IFDA does not explicitly require a franchisor to translate its FDD into other languages, though the disclosure must be clear, concise and understand - able, avoiding technical language and unnecessary Certain transactions and entities are exempt from the registration and disclosure requirements, such as institutional franchisees (eg, banks and insurance companies) and franchisors meeting specific finan - cial thresholds. See 2.3 Franchise Disclosure Exemp- tions . Good Faith and Pre-Contractual Disclosure Obligations complexity. Exemptions While Illinois law does not explicitly recognise culpa in contrahendo, the IFDA and Illinois common law impose a duty of good faith and fair dealing in all franchise agreements and disclosures, including as follows: • the IFDA prohibits false or misleading statements in disclosure documents and requires the disclosure of all material facts necessary to avoid misleading prospective franchisees; • courts have held that failure to provide proper disclosure documents constitutes an unlawful sale, giving franchisees the right to rescind the agree - ment and seek damages; and • the IFDA provides a private right of action for franchisees to sue for rescission or damages if the franchisor violates disclosure requirements. 2.2 Consequences of a Failure to Disclose Under Illinois law, a franchisor’s failure to provide an FDD can result in significant civil and criminal conse - quences, discussed below.
regardless of how the parties label their relationship. In Brenkman v Belmont Marketing , Inc , 87 Ill App 3d 1060, the court held that subjective intent is irrelevant and that classification depends solely on whether the statutory elements are met. Similarly, in Salkeld v VR Business Brokers , 192 Ill App 3d 663, the court reiter - ated that the Act applies when the three criteria are met and should be liberally interpreted to protect fran - chisees.
2. Franchise Disclosure 2.1 Mandatory Disclosure Disclosure Requirements
Illinois has a dedicated franchise disclosure statute that operates alongside the federal FTC Franchise Rule. Under Section 5 (2) of the IFDA, a franchisor may not offer or sell a franchise required to be registered in Illinois without first delivering a disclosure statement and copies of all proposed agreements to the fran - chisee at least 14 calendar days before the earlier of signing a binding agreement or paying consideration. Section 16 of the IFDA also requires the disclosure statement to follow the FTC Franchise Rule’s for - mat, the guidelines of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) and any imple - menting rules issued by the Illinois Attorney General. The FDD’s 23 items cover matters including: • the franchisor’s business, litigation and bankruptcy history; • initial fees, ongoing royalties and other required payments; • the franchisee’s estimated initial investment; • territory rights and any restrictions on the fran - chisor’s own competing activity; • trade mark, patent and proprietary information; • financing arrangements and any financial perfor - mance representation the franchisor chooses to make; and • contact information for existing and recently departed franchisees.
120 FRANCHISING 2026
C HAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook