In July 2025, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09) introduced H.R. 4614, the Franchisee Freedom Act. This legislation would grant franchisees a private right of action to sue franchisors for violations of the FTC Franchise Rule—primarily disclosure violations.

Importantly, the bill goes beyond traditional “actual damages” (often limited to fees paid directly to the franchisor) and allows franchisees to seek additional equitable relief, including rescission and recovery of related costs such as lease or loan obligations. The bill also prohibits franchisors from interfering with or retaliating against franchisees for associating with other franchisees.

In September 2025, Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK-01) introduced H.R. 5267, the American Franchise Act, in the House. Following its introduction, AAFD and the Coalition of Franchisee Associations worked with attorneys Mark Dady and Robert Zarco, in collaboration with the International Franchise Association, to develop a mutually agreed-upon redline version of the bill.

All participating groups support the redline version, which was subsequently introduced in the Senate by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) in December 2025 as S. 3525. The House bill has broad bipartisan support, and AAFD has been assured the opportunity to update the bill during committee markup to reflect the agreed-upon language.

S.B. 798, introduced by Sen. Christopher Head (R-03), a former Home Instead franchisee, would have banned noncompete clauses in franchise agreements and required franchises operating in Virginia to be governed by Virginia franchise law. The bill passed the Senate unanimously (40-0) but was killed in House committee.

H.B. 0992, introduced by Delegate Marc Korman (D-16), initially included provisions that would have restricted the rights of franchisees outside Maryland to sue Maryland-based franchisors under the state’s disclosure law. AAFD opposed this provision, and it was ultimately removed. The bill also added protections for freedom of association, which AAFD supported, and created a pilot franchise registration program. Despite amendments and AAFD’s eventual support, the bill died in committee.

S.B. 439, introduced by Sen. Joshua A. Sanchez (R-29), proposed New Mexico’s first franchise law, modeled after Indiana’s Deceptive Franchise Practices Act. While comprehensive and supported by AAFD, the bill died in committee due to lack of legislative support.

Three bills were introduced by Rep. Zach Hudson (D-49), all of which AAFD supported. Unfortunately, each failed to gain traction and died early in the session:

• H.B. 2572 – Would have limited the hours franchisors could require franchisees to operate when doing so was unprofitable or unsafe (with a needed exemption for lodging).
• H.B. 2584 – Would have prohibited franchisors from charging undisclosed fees, codifying the FTC’s July 12, 2024 guidance into state law.
• H.B. 2590 – Would have limited supply-chain mandates and required rebates to be accounted for and passed through to franchisees.