franchisor

Of course most franchisees of any franchisor are required to buy supplies etc from the franchisor, but McDonald's is famous for also charging them rent.

Per their legal interpretation, they become a franchisor if they do things like ensure quality or consistency.

Usually it's just who the franchisor is.

A franchise had the capital to make their own restaurant but chose to be subservient to a franchisor instead.

But the franchisees are still much more dependent on the franchisor than they would be in a normal B2B relationship.

Unless the franchise has a contract with the franchisor that states non-compete, then it is not only fair but completely legal.

The franchisee typically pays 10% to 20% royalty to the franchisor (the aforementioned companies).

Why would it ever be fair for a franchisor to act like that?

Plus, the franchisor can penalize the franchisee, or revoke the franchise outright.

From the Massachusetts law: (c) It shall be deemed a violation of subsection (a) of section 3 for a manufacturer, distributor or franchisor representative:...

I started with this franchisor when they were virtually unheard of, and now I'm sure all of you have eaten in one.

) several times now, and it only seems to prohibit the franchisor from forcing franchisees from doing certain things.

Note that "franchisor" as defined in that law includes all manufacturers, whether they sell franchises or not.

And many of those "service costs" can be freely set by the franchisor and have the purpose of channeling revenue back from the restaurants - revenue that would not exist if no burgers were sold.

You (the franchisee) must use this specific machine that breaks all the time and for repairs to that machine you must use this specific vendor with whom we (the franchisor) have a "special" deal.