Franchise disclosure obligations are often treated as technical compliance requirements that are more guidance than rule. However, as Federal Trade Commission v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al. illustrates, they are far more consequential than that. When required disclosures are allegedly inaccurate, incomplete, or late, the consequences can include substantial monetary relief, long-term compliance monitoring, and reputational harm.
On March 18, 2026, the FTC announced a stipulated settlement resolving its complaint against Xponential Fitness and related entities for alleged violations of the FTC’s Franchise Rule. The settlement requires Xponential to pay $17 million for franchisee redress. Xponential also paid approximately $22.75 million in separate private settlements with current and former franchisees. All together, Xponential made over $40 million in payouts related to the matter.
According to the FTC, the $17 million settlement is the largest sum the agency had ever returned to franchisees in a franchise case. That figure alone makes the case noteworthy, but Xponential represents a more important point: the FTC appears willing to scrutinize franchisors’ disclosures, particularly where alleged omissions or inaccuracies limit a prospective franchisee’s ability to evaluate costs, risks, operational timelines, management background, and franchisee turnover.
Background: The Franchise Rule
The FTC’s Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 436, governs presale disclosures in the offer and sale of franchises. Among other provisions, it requires a franchisor to furnish a prospective franchisee with a Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”) containing 23 categories of information, each known as an Item. A prospective franchisee generally must receive the FDD at least 14 calendar days before signing a binding agreement or paying consideration in connection with the proposed franchise sale. The Rule does not evaluate the financial merits or wisdom of the transaction; rather, it requires accurate, complete, and timely disclosures so prospective franchisees can assess the costs and risks before committing capital. In practice, enforcement often turns on whether the franchisor disclosed the information the Rule requires, both accurately and on time.
Federal Trade Commission v. Xponential Fitness, Inc.
According to the FTC’s complaint and press release, Xponential sells franchises for boutique fitness studio brands including Club Pilates, Pure Barre, YogaSix, StretchLab, CycleBar, and BFT.
The FTC’s complaint asserted the following categories of alleged Franchise Rule violations, each tied to a specific FDD Item:
- Opening Timeline Representations (Item 11). The FTC alleged that Xponential represented that franchise studios typically opened, with buildout complete, within approximately six months after signing the franchise agreement. According to the complaint, actual opening timelines often exceeded one year, and some studios allegedly never opened.
- Management, Litigation, and Bankruptcy Disclosures (Items 2–4). The Franchise Rule requires disclosure of certain information about franchisor officers, directors, and managers, including specified litigation and bankruptcy history. The FTC alleged that Xponential failed to disclose that former CEO Anthony Geisler was involved in the sale or operation of franchises and failed to disclose litigation involving him that the FTC alleged was required to be disclosed. The FTC also alleged that Xponential failed to disclose bankruptcy history involving a former president of franchise development.
- Former Franchisee Contact Information and Outlet Turnover (Item 20). The Franchise Rule requires franchisors to provide certain information about outlets that closed, were terminated, or otherwise left the system during the prior fiscal year, including contact information that prospective franchisees can use for due diligence. The FTC alleged that Xponential omitted certain names and, in many instances, provided contact information that became unusable after the franchisee left the system.
- Timing of FDD Delivery (14-Day Disclosure Period). The FTC alleged that Xponential failed, in some instances, to provide accurate and complete FDDs at least 14 calendar days before prospective franchisees signed binding agreements or paid money. The FTC characterized that alleged failure as material because prospective franchisees were entering long-term franchise agreements and making substantial financial commitments.
The Settlement: Money, Monitoring, and Compliance Risk
The settlement is significant not only because of the $17 million monetary judgment, but also because of the compliance obligations that accompany it. Under the stipulated order resolving the FTC’s claims, Xponential agreed to redress franchisees’ harm and to injunctive relief prohibiting misrepresentations concerning franchise costs, risks, opening timelines, management background, litigation history, bankruptcies, and former franchisee information. The order also imposes compliance reporting and recordkeeping obligations for ten years, including preservation of accounting records, personnel records, consumer or franchisee complaints, and refund requests. In addition, the order authorizes the FTC to monitor compliance through sworn reports, document requests, depositions, and other lawful compliance-monitoring tools.
Where the FTC May Be Heading
The FTC framed the settlement as part of a broader consumer-protection and regulatory enforcement agenda. In the FTC’s press release, Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated that Xponential’s alleged failure to provide legally mandated information denied prospective franchisees the ability to evaluate franchise costs and risks. Chairman Andrew Ferguson made a similar point in his concurring statement, characterizing the settlement as a significant recovery “on behalf of workers” and stating that “American workers should take comfort in the fact that, on my watch, the Commission will continue ‘[p]rotecting [them as] consumers’ and ‘in their roles as workers.’” Chairman Ferguson also linked the matter to the Labor Task Force he created in February 2025, which prioritizes rooting out and prosecuting deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm Americans. As a final signal of where FTC priorities lie, Chairman Ferguson closed his concurrence with a pointed warning: “Today’s victory is not our last.”
In short, the Xponential enforcement action appears to reflect heightened scrutiny of disclosures required under the Franchise Rule, including disclosures related to opening timelines, management personnel, litigation and bankruptcy history, and former franchisee contact information. For prospective franchisees, the lesson should be clear: the FDD is not a sales pitch and should be used as a due-diligence roadmap before signing a long-term franchise agreement or investing in the franchise system.
Franchise buyers should therefore take the Xponential matter seriously. It highlights that the FDD remains a buyer’s most important pre-sale document, but it is only useful if it is diligently read and compared against the franchisor’s sales pitch, former franchisee feedback, and the buyer’s own financial assumptions. Each Item of the FDD should be analyzed carefully, with particular attention to inconsistencies, omissions, outdated contact information, unexplained changes in management disclosures, and timing issues related to delivery of the FDD. Xponential also illustrates how FTC enforcement may focus not only on affirmative representations, but also on omissions and incomplete disclosures. Franchisees and prospective franchisees may report franchise-related concerns to the FTC through the agency’s fraud-reporting portal, regardless of whether a franchise agreement purports to restrict such communications.
Authors:
