April 13, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
April 13, 2026 | U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey | Unpublished Decision
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the District of New Jersey dismissed claims against a fitness franchisor for lack of personal jurisdiction in a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The plaintiff alleged that a franchisee sent unlawful telemarketing text messages and sought to impute that conduct to the franchisor based on alleged control over marketing practices. The franchisor argued that it neither directed nor controlled the specific communications at issue and lacked sufficient forum-related conduct. The court agreed, concluding that while the franchisor operated a nationwide franchise system and maintained general brand standards, the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the franchisor’s conduct and the alleged statutory violations to support specific personal jurisdiction.
Relevant Background
The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, filed a putative class action alleging that he received unsolicited telemarketing text messages from a local Anytime Fitness franchisee in violation of the TCPA. The complaint asserted that the franchisee sent messages after the plaintiff opted out and outside permissible hours. The plaintiff sought to hold both the franchisee and the franchisor liable, alleging that the franchisor directed and controlled the marketing practices that led to the messages.
The franchisor, a Minnesota-based entity, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It submitted a sworn declaration stating that each franchise location is independently owned and operated, that franchisees control their own day-to-day marketing decisions, and that the franchisor did not authorize or direct the text messages at issue. The franchisor further emphasized that franchise agreements require compliance with applicable law and that the communications originated from local phone numbers associated with the franchisee, not the franchisor.
The plaintiff did not meaningfully rebut the declaration with evidence, nor did he request jurisdictional discovery. Instead, he relied primarily on allegations that the franchisor provided training, imposed brand guidelines, and required use of certain marketing tools and vendors.
Decision
The court applied the Third Circuit’s three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction, focusing on whether the defendant purposefully directed activities at the forum, whether the claims arose out of or related to those activities, and whether exercising jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.
The court found that the franchisor’s nationwide operations and franchise relationships were sufficient to satisfy the purposeful availment prong. The franchisor had entered into franchise agreements with New Jersey locations and derived revenue from those relationships. However, the court concluded that this alone was insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
The decision turned on the second prong—whether the plaintiff’s claims arose out of or related to the franchisor’s contacts with the forum. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the required nexus. Although the plaintiff alleged that the franchisor provided marketing guidance and required use of certain systems, the undisputed evidence showed that franchisees controlled their own local marketing decisions and that the specific text messages at issue were not sent at the franchisor’s direction.
The court emphasized that a franchise relationship, standing alone, does not create personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the franchisor’s own conduct—not merely the franchisee’s actions—was sufficiently connected to the alleged harm. Here, the plaintiff’s allegations reflected, at most, a typical franchisor-franchisee relationship involving brand standards and general oversight. That level of involvement did not establish that the franchisor purposefully directed the specific conduct giving rise to the TCPA claims.
The court also noted the plaintiff’s failure to submit evidence contradicting the franchisor’s declaration or to seek jurisdictional discovery. Once the franchisor introduced competent evidence challenging jurisdiction, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to respond with proof, not merely allegations. The plaintiff’s failure to do so further supported dismissal.
Accordingly, the court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the franchisor from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Looking Forward
This decision reinforces a critical distinction for franchisors facing claims based on franchisee conduct: general brand control and system-wide standards do not, without more, establish the type of direct connection required to impose jurisdiction or liability. Courts will require a clear link between the franchisor’s own conduct and the alleged wrongdoing, particularly where claims arise from localized activities such as marketing or customer outreach.
The ruling also highlights the importance of maintaining operational separation between franchisors and franchisees. While franchisors commonly provide training, establish brand standards, and designate preferred vendors, those features of a franchise system may not, standing alone, support jurisdiction absent evidence that the franchisor directed or controlled the specific conduct at issue.
From a litigation perspective, the case underscores the evidentiary burden plaintiffs face when jurisdiction is challenged. Once a franchisor submits a sworn declaration disclaiming involvement in the alleged conduct, plaintiffs must respond with competent evidence or seek jurisdictional discovery. Reliance on conclusory allegations regarding “control” may be insufficient, particularly where the record reflects a conventional franchise structure.
For franchisors, the decision provides a practical roadmap for minimizing exposure in similar cases. Clear contractual allocation of responsibilities, consistent operational practices that reinforce franchisee independence, and disciplined responses to litigation challenges may help preserve the structural distinctions that courts continue to recognize in evaluating jurisdiction and liability.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Partner at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
