Does the Bft Franchise Disclosure Document knowingly omit any material fact or contain any untrue statement of a material fact?

According to the 2025 Bft Franchise Disclosure Document, Bft represents that the document does not knowingly omit any material fact or contain any untrue statement of a material fact. This representation is specifically made on the New York Representations Page, indicating that Bft is attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the FDD. This statement is crucial for prospective franchisees as it provides a degree of assurance that the information they are relying on to make their investment decision is, to the best of Bft's knowledge, truthful and complete. This representation is particularly important for franchisees in states with franchise laws requiring registration or filing of the FDD, such as California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

However, it is important for prospective franchisees to understand the limitations of this representation. While Bft asserts that the FDD is accurate and complete to the best of its knowledge, this does not guarantee that the information is entirely free from errors or omissions. It is possible that some inaccuracies or omissions may exist despite Bft's best efforts to ensure the FDD's accuracy. Therefore, it is essential for prospective franchisees to conduct their own due diligence and seek independent legal and financial advice before making any investment decisions. This includes carefully reviewing the FDD, the franchise agreement, and all other relevant documents, as well as conducting thorough research on Bft and the franchise opportunity.

Furthermore, the FDD includes additional disclosures for specific states, highlighting the importance of understanding the applicable state laws. For example, the FDD states that in California, the registration of the franchise offering does not constitute approval, recommendation, or endorsement by the Commissioner. Additionally, certain provisions in agreements that disclaim reliance on representations made by Bft or its agents are deemed contrary to public policy and are void and unenforceable in California. Similarly, in Illinois, certain provisions related to waiver of jury trial, class actions, and limitation of actions are subject to the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act. These state-specific addenda emphasize the need for prospective franchisees to be aware of the specific legal protections and requirements in their respective states.