

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jack Temple, jack.temple@berlinrosen.com, (646) 200-5280
Citing evidence of a dramatic power imbalance between the nation's top franchisors and their franchise operators, the Service Employees International Union petitioned the Federal Trade Commission Monday to launch an investigation into the franchise sector and issue recommendations for curbing "abusive and predatory" practices by franchisors in the $800 billion industry.
"Franchised businesses represent a large and growing segment of the nation's businesses," the petition reads. "Yet, unlike traditional small businesses, most franchises reflect a profound imbalance of contractual power that favors the franchisor and places franchisees in a financially precarious situation."
The 32-page petition calls on the FTC to invoke its authority to issue civil investigative demands that would compel top franchise companies to turn over information about their relationships with franchisees.
The request for investigation contains evidence from an extensive review of franchise agreements at 14 of the largest franchise systems in the country finding that franchise agreements are consistently one-sided, often allowing franchisors to terminate franchisees for minor violations of one of thousands of pages of ever-changing rules.
The petition details five franchisor practices that are particularly harmful and appear endemic to the sector:
Franchise operators from major chains including McDonald's and 7-Eleven voiced their support for a federal investigation Monday, describing how their experiences in the franchise sector underscore the urgent need for balance and fairness in the industry.
Jose Quijano, a former Vice President at McDonald's Corp. and current McDonald's franchisee from Puerto Rico, spoke on behalf of all Puerto Rican McDonald's operators about how McDonald's franchisees on the island collectively lost control of their businesses overnight in 2007 after the company unilaterally installed the South American investment firm Arcos Dorados as the region's new franchisor, empowered to make its own rules in place of McDonald's while also actively competing as a franchise operator itself by adding new stores in the market.
"We enjoyed a good relationship with McDonald's until we developed the Puerto Rican market and it became very profitable," said Luis Moyett , a McDonald's franchisee who opened his first store in Puerto Rico in 1981. "McDonald's then broke off its contact with us, and inserted a foreign sub-franchisor that makes its own rules. That company degraded services, abandoned the advertising cooperative, stopped paying to the joint advertising fund, opened its own restaurants close to ours and took our customers away."
Moyett added, "McDonald's decided to make a financial experiment in Puerto Rico at our expense. We don't know whether we are a pilot plan for things to come in the U.S. mainland, but this experiment is destroying our livelihoods."
Jas Dhillon, a 7-Eleven franchisee from Los Angeles, echoed concerns raised by McDonald's franchisees regarding the unchecked power of franchisors: Dhillon described how South Asian immigrant franchise operators at 7-Eleven have been targeted for abuse by the company, facing threats and intimidation, with many ultimately losing their business altogether after the company decided to resell their stores in a churning program revealed by a management whistleblower to other higher-paying operators.
"The franchise sector bills itself as a path to the American Dream, but the truth is that franchisors like 7-Eleven and others have made this business into a trap," said Dhillon. "Franchisors hold all the power, and so they can churn through one operator to the next, leaving us with nothing while their profits continue to soar."
And Kathryn-Slater Carter, a former McDonald's operator from California, described losing her business last year after she spoke out about the need to reform the franchise industry.
"Just like that, McDonald's took away a business that my husband and I had spent our lives building together," said Slater-Carter. "We had nowhere to turn - we were voiceless. Companies like McDonald's have left franchisees no choice but to stand together and demand change and that's why I am supporting the call for an FTC investigation. The industry needs reform now."
The call for change comes as the franchise industry grows. Franchised businesses represent a large and expanding segment of the nation's economy, making up almost 11 percent of businesses with employees, employing an estimated 9.1 million people, and consistently adding jobs faster than non-franchised businesses in recent years.
"The substantial evidence of pervasive franchisor abuses presented in the petition demonstrates an urgent need to reform the growing franchise sector--for the benefit of workers and franchisees alike," said Scott Courtney, assistant to the president of SEIU. "An FTC investigation could help curb harmful and predatory franchisor practices, giving franchisees space to create good jobs and grow the economy."
In addition to filing the petition, SEIU is supporting efforts by franchisees in California to pass the Small Business Investment Protection Act, a bill that protects franchisees against unfair terminations, allows franchisees to monetize their equity when franchisors refuse to renew franchise agreements, and protects franchisees' ability to sell or transfer their units. The State Assembly passed the bill with overwhelming support last week.
In California and beyond, the franchise sector faces heightened scrutiny. More than one in six franchise loans made over a 20-year period has ended in failure, according to a recent analysis of data from the U.S. Small Business Administration. A recent poll by FranchiseGrade.com revealed more than half of franchisees say they can't earn a living from their businesses. And a recent survey of McDonald's franchisees by Janney Capital Markets found record-low confidence among franchisees in the company's 6-month business outlook.
With 2 million members in Canada, the United States and Puerto Rico, SEIU is the fastest-growing union in the Americas. Focused on uniting workers in healthcare, public services and property services, SEIU members are winning better wages, healthcare and more secure jobs for our communities, while uniting their strength with their counterparts around the world to help ensure that workers--not just corporations and CEOs--benefit from today's global economy.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
"This is insane," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP."
The US Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the government shutdown drags on with no end in sight.
One wrinkle in the case is that the Supreme Court order, which came after the Trump administration appealed the lower court directive, was handed down by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her brief order came after the Massachusetts-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit opted not to swiftly intervene in the case.
Jackson, who is tasked with handling emergency issues from the 1st Circuit, wrote that her administrative stay in the case will end 48 hours after the appeals court issues a ruling in the case.
The justice's order came after states across the US had already begun distributing SNAP benefits after a district court judge directed the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funds by Friday.
"Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries," NPR reported.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote Friday that "it may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the court's behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court's ruling in this case."
He continued:
But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.
The Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to flout its legal obligation to distribute SNAP funds during the shutdown as low-income Americans grow increasingly desperate and food bank demand skyrockets.
"This is insane," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote after the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP. Follow the law, fund SNAP, and feed American families."
Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts—one of the states that quickly moved to process SNAP benefits following the district court order—said in a statement that "Trump should never have put the American people in this position."
"Families shouldn’t have had to go hungry because their president chose to put politics over their lives," said Healey.
Feeding America, a nonprofit network of hundreds of food banks across the US, said Friday that food banks bought nearly 325% more food through the organization's grocery purchase program during the week of October 27 than they did at the same time last year.
Donations to food banks, which were underresourced even prior to the shutdown, have also skyrocketed. The head of a Houston food bank said the organization is in "disaster response mode."
"Across the country, communities are feeling the real, human impact the shutdown is having on their neighbors and communities,” said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer at Feeding America. "Families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities are showing strength through the hardship, and their communities are standing beside them—giving their time and money, and advocating so no one faces hunger alone.”