International Law

From a Veteran Dunking Donuts

Image via Wikipedia

Over at BMM, an anonymous poster writes about being in the employee of an evil franchisor, possibly Dunkin Donuts:

"The job of the loss prevention department was to nail as many franchisees as possible for technical breaches of the franchise agreement, terminate them, and bring in as much "restitution" as possible.

There was a target to be met for how much "restitution" was brought in. It was in the millions of dollars.

There were typically over 100 open investigations at any one time. They spared no effort and no expense.

Your eyes would pop if you saw the lengths they went through to get you.

If they could make a halfway decent case against you then you were cooked and they would absolutely rake you over the coals without mercy."

I have difficulties with these types of stories.

Who knows why this poster has made these allegations, without a link to anything that might be evidence of bad faith.

Shouldn't a franchisor be zealous in protecting the brand?

Yes, of course, a zealot may be go overboard.  But we need some evidence, and not mere allegations.

The poster could simply be an unhappy employee looking to make waves, it could be someone looking to slag DD, it could be a franchisee in litigation.

These types of postings simply add nothing of quality.

Perhaps the poster is right: but, how would we know?

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on July 21, 2008 (boomark / email).