In the Kentucky case, what was the time period for which the Louisville Byrider franchisee provided a credit on customer accounts?
Byrider Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
urt, Division Nine. Complaint against J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. and the Louisville franchisee alleging violation of Kentucky's Consumer Protection Act by a pattern of unfair and deceptive sales and financing practices engaged in by the Louisville franchisee, aided and abetted by unlawful sales and financing techniques developed by J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. For purposes of settlement only, an Agreement and Consent Judgment Entry and Order were filed February 2006 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jefferson Circuit Court, Division 7. The court enjoined J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. and its Kentucky franchisees from violating the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the federal Truth in Lending Act, and the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and ordered remedial steps for the alleged violations; J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. paid $300,000.00 to the Attorney General as reimbursement, attorneys' fees and other costs of the investigation and litigation. The Louisville franchisee paid $2.7 million in customer restitution. In addition, the Louisville franchisee agreed to provide a credit of $500 on each customer account for vehicles purchased during 2000 through 2004. The Louisville franchisee is no
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a lawsuit was filed against Byrider and its Louisville franchisee alleging violations of Kentucky's Consumer Protection Act. As part of the settlement, the Louisville franchisee agreed to provide a $500 credit on each customer account. This credit applied to vehicles purchased during the period of 2000 through 2004. The Louisville franchisee is no longer a franchisee.
This type of legal issue and settlement is important for prospective franchisees to note. It highlights the potential risks associated with consumer protection laws and the financial implications of non-compliance. The fact that the franchisee had to provide restitution and is no longer part of the Byrider system underscores the seriousness of the matter.
It is also important to note that Byrider itself paid $300,000 to the Attorney General as reimbursement for attorneys' fees and other costs related to the investigation and litigation. This indicates that Byrider, as the franchisor, also has a responsibility to ensure that its franchisees comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Prospective franchisees should carefully review Byrider's training and compliance programs to understand how Byrider supports its franchisees in these areas.