What was the outcome of the administrative proceeding against All Dogs Unleashed in Minnesota?
All_Dogs_Unleashed Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
TION**
In the Matter of ADU Franchise limited liability company Using the trade name of All Dogs Unleashed: Administrative proceeding, filed by the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce against us following our elective report to the Department stating that, in April 2022, we violated the Minnesota Franchise Act by offering and selling a franchise in Minnesota while our application for registration, filed in December 2021, was still pending. In October 2022, we entered into a Consent Order whereby we agreed to refrain from violating the Minnesota Franchise Agreement, to offer rescission to the franchisee, and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD page 8)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 All Dogs Unleashed Franchise Disclosure Document, an administrative proceeding was filed against the company by the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce. The issue stemmed from All Dogs Unleashed offering and selling a franchise in Minnesota in April 2022 while their registration application, submitted in December 2021, was still pending. This action constituted a violation of the Minnesota Franchise Act.
In October 2022, All Dogs Unleashed reached a resolution by entering into a Consent Order. As part of this order, All Dogs Unleashed agreed to several terms. First, they committed to refraining from further violations of the Minnesota Franchise Agreement. Second, they were required to offer rescission to the franchisee involved in the violation. Finally, All Dogs Unleashed was obligated to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.
This type of disclosure is standard in franchise disclosure documents, as it informs potential franchisees of any legal or regulatory issues the franchisor has faced. For a prospective All Dogs Unleashed franchisee, this information indicates that the company has had a compliance issue in the past, but it was resolved through a consent order involving specific corrective actions and a monetary penalty. While the violation appears to have been unintentional, it underscores the importance of franchise regulatory compliance.