The Horsepower Brands lawsuit is one of the most closely watched franchise legal disputes of 2026. Franchisees across multiple home service brands have taken legal action against the San Antonio-based franchisor, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and broken promises that cost them their life savings.
This is not a small, isolated complaint. Multiple brands under the Horsepower Brands umbrella are named in legal filings, and the list of affected franchisees continues to grow.
In this guide, you will find a complete breakdown of what the lawsuit is about, who qualifies, what franchisees are claiming, what financial recovery might look like, and where the case stands right now in 2026.
One striking detail: some franchisees paid upwards of $150,000 or more in initial franchise fees before the alleged problems surfaced. That kind of financial exposure is exactly why this case has drawn serious legal attention.
What Is the Horsepower Brands Lawsuit?
The Horsepower Brands lawsuit refers to legal actions brought by current and former franchisees against Horsepower Brands LLC, a San Antonio-based multi-brand home services franchisor.
Franchisees allege the company made false and misleading promises during the sales process, failed to deliver on support commitments outlined in franchise agreements, and provided inaccurate financial performance representations in its Franchise Disclosure Documents.
The core of the dispute is straightforward: franchisees say they were sold a dream that did not match reality.
Many invested their retirement savings, home equity, or personal loans into these franchises. When the promised training, leads, and operational support did not materialize as described, businesses failed and investments were lost.
| Key Case Details | Information |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Horsepower Brands LLC |
| Headquarters | San Antonio, Texas |
| Type of Action | Franchise fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract |
| Claimants | Current and former franchisees |
| Primary Legal Vehicle | Individual suits and potential class action |
| Year Activity Intensified | 2024 to 2026 |
The lawsuit is not a single filing. It represents a pattern of legal actions filed by franchisees across different states against the same parent company.
Horsepower Brands Lawsuit Update: Where Things Stand in 2026
As of 2026, the Horsepower Brands lawsuit is active and ongoing, with new legal filings and franchisee complaints continuing to surface.
Attorneys representing franchisees have been gathering evidence from across multiple brand lines. Courts have been processing discovery requests, and franchise law specialists have publicly flagged the case as significant within the franchise litigation space.
No global settlement has been finalized as of mid-2026. Individual cases remain in various stages of negotiation, arbitration, or active litigation.
| Status | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case Status | Active and ongoing |
| Settlement Reached | No confirmed global settlement as of 2026 |
| Discovery Phase | Underway in multiple related cases |
| Arbitration Activity | Multiple franchisees pursuing arbitration |
| New Filings | Continuing into 2026 |
Several state attorneys general offices have reportedly received complaints related to Horsepower Brands’ franchise sales practices. Whether those complaints result in formal regulatory action remains to be seen.
The legal situation is fluid. Any franchisee or prospective claimant should stay closely connected to developments, as case timelines can shift quickly once discovery concludes.
What Happened to Horsepower Brands?
Horsepower Brands was founded with a bold vision: build a portfolio of home service franchise brands and scale them rapidly using a centralized support model.
The company grew fast. It acquired or launched multiple brands spanning roofing, lawn care, pool services, irrigation, and restoration. At its peak, it was pitching itself as a franchise investment destination for entrepreneurs who wanted to own a business with backing from a larger organization.
The trouble started when that backing did not show up as promised.
Franchisees from multiple brands began reporting similar experiences: inadequate training, poor lead generation systems, thin operational support, and financial projections that proved wildly optimistic in practice.
Think of it like buying a fully equipped restaurant franchise and arriving to find an empty kitchen and no staff. The brand name was real. The infrastructure, for many, was not.
By 2024, the volume of franchisee complaints had reached a point where legal action became the primary path forward. The company’s rapid expansion model left some franchisees feeling like they were funding the brand’s growth rather than growing their own businesses.
Key Takeaway: Horsepower Brands grew aggressively across home service franchises but franchisees say the operational support promised during sales never matched what was actually delivered.
The Horsepower Brands Franchise Lawsuit Explained
The franchise lawsuit against Horsepower Brands centers on several specific legal theories that franchisees and their attorneys have raised across multiple filings.
The primary claims fall into these categories:
- Fraudulent misrepresentation during franchise sales presentations
- Breach of contract for failure to deliver services promised in franchise agreements
- Violation of FTC franchise rules relating to earnings claims and disclosure requirements
- Negligent misrepresentation of the brand’s support infrastructure
- Unjust enrichment, where franchisees allege the company profited from fees while providing inadequate value
Each of these theories requires the franchisee to demonstrate that Horsepower Brands made specific statements, that those statements were false or misleading, and that the franchisee relied on those statements to their financial detriment.
That last element is often the clearest part. Franchisees who wrote checks for $75,000, $100,000, or $150,000 or more in franchise fees have documented financial harm baked directly into their bank records.
| Legal Theory | What It Means for Franchisees |
|---|---|
| Fraudulent Misrepresentation | Company knowingly made false promises |
| Breach of Contract | Failed to deliver on written franchise commitments |
| FTC Rule Violations | Improper earnings claims in sales materials |
| Negligent Misrepresentation | Made false claims without reasonable verification |
| Unjust Enrichment | Collected fees without providing promised services |
The lawsuit is not just about bad business outcomes. It is about whether Horsepower Brands’ conduct crossed the line from disappointing to illegal.
Horsepower Brands Fraud Allegations: What Franchisees Claim
Franchisees allege that Horsepower Brands representatives made specific verbal and written promises that turned out to be false.
These allegations of fraud are serious. They go beyond claiming the business did not work out. They claim the company knew, or should have known, that its promises were not grounded in reality.
Specific fraud allegations include:
- Inflated revenue projections presented during sales calls
- Claims of proven support systems that did not exist in practice
- Promises of exclusive territories that were allegedly not honored
- Representations about marketing resources that were not delivered
- Claims about the CEO’s expertise and track record that franchisees dispute
Fraud in franchise sales is not uncommon, but it is also not easy to prove. The key question courts and arbitrators examine is whether the company’s statements were knowingly false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
Bold Fact: In franchise fraud cases nationally, claimants who prove intentional misrepresentation have recovered between two and three times the damages of those who only prove breach of contract, according to franchise litigation data.
The fraud angle in the Horsepower Brands case is significant because it opens the door to punitive damages in jurisdictions that allow them, which could substantially increase any eventual recovery.
The Horsepower Brands Misrepresentation Lawsuit Breakdown
The misrepresentation claims in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit focus specifically on what franchisees were told before they signed their agreements.
Misrepresentation does not always require proof of intentional fraud. Negligent misrepresentation, meaning statements that were careless or unfounded rather than deliberately dishonest, can still result in legal liability and financial recovery.
Franchisees allege that Horsepower Brands sales representatives:
- Presented financial performance data that was not supported by actual franchisee results
- Described training programs as comprehensive when they were reportedly brief and inadequate
- Promised ongoing mentorship and operational guidance that was rarely or never provided
- Represented the brand’s market position as stronger than the data supported
The distinction between fraud and negligent misrepresentation matters in court. Fraud requires proving the company knew its statements were false. Negligent misrepresentation only requires showing the company failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its statements were accurate.
| Misrepresentation Type | Standard of Proof | Potential Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Intentional Fraud | High: must prove knowing falsehood | Higher damages, possible punitive awards |
| Negligent Misrepresentation | Lower: must prove careless statements | Compensatory damages |
| Innocent Misrepresentation | Lowest: statement was false but not careless | Rescission of contract, fee return |
For many franchisees in this case, the negligent misrepresentation path may be the most achievable route to recovery, even if it is less dramatic than a full fraud finding.
Key Takeaway: Franchisees do not need to prove intentional fraud to win a misrepresentation claim. Careless or unsupported promises can still create legal liability for Horsepower Brands.
The FDD Lawsuit: What the Franchise Disclosure Documents Reveal
The Franchise Disclosure Document, known as the FDD, is at the heart of many allegations in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit.
The FDD is a legally required document that franchisors must provide to prospective franchisees at least 14 days before any agreement is signed. It is supposed to be the definitive, honest document that allows buyers to make an informed investment decision.
Franchisees allege that Horsepower Brands’ FDDs contained:
- Inaccurate or misleading Item 19 financial performance representations
- Incomplete or outdated information about the company’s financial condition
- Failure to disclose pending litigation against the company
- Misstatements about franchisee success rates and average revenues
- Incomplete disclosure of the backgrounds of key company executives
Item 19 of the FDD is where franchisors can voluntarily disclose how existing franchisees perform financially. When that data is presented misleadingly or cherry-picked to look favorable, it becomes a significant legal problem.
| FDD Item | What It Covers | Alleged Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Item 19 | Financial performance representations | Allegedly misleading revenue projections |
| Item 20 | Franchise system size and growth | Disputed accuracy |
| Item 21 | Financial statements | Concerns about disclosed financial health |
| Item 3 | Litigation history | Alleged incomplete disclosure |
The FTC’s Franchise Rule requires strict compliance with FDD standards. Violations can result in both private litigation and regulatory enforcement action.
Horsepower Brands Franchise Agreement Disputes
Beyond the sales process, franchisees have raised specific disputes about the content and enforcement of their franchise agreements.
A franchise agreement is a binding contract. When a franchisor fails to meet its contractual obligations, franchisees have the right to pursue breach of contract claims regardless of what the FDD says.
Common franchise agreement disputes in the Horsepower Brands litigation include:
- Territory protection violations: Franchisees allege their exclusive territories were not respected
- Royalty disputes: Questions about whether royalties were owed when promised support was not delivered
- Marketing fund disputes: Allegations that marketing fund contributions were misused or mismanaged
- Training shortfalls: Claims that required training minimums specified in agreements were not met
- Early termination penalties: Disputes over whether franchisees who left were rightfully charged exit fees
Franchise agreements are notoriously one-sided documents. They are drafted by franchisors and almost always favor the franchisor. That is not automatically illegal, but when a franchisor fails to meet even its own minimal obligations, the scales tip toward franchisee relief.
Bold Stat: Franchise attorneys estimate that 60 to 70 percent of franchise disputes ultimately involve at least one breach of contract claim alongside fraud or misrepresentation allegations.
The agreement disputes in this case may actually be the easiest claims to prove because the obligations are written down in black and white.
Which Brands Are Included in the Horsepower Brands Lawsuit?
Multiple brands under the Horsepower Brands umbrella have been named or referenced in the legal actions against the company.
Horsepower Brands grew through acquisitions and brand launches. Its portfolio at various points included:
| Brand | Service Category | Franchise Status |
|---|---|---|
| Mighty Dog Roofing | Roofing services | Named in related complaints |
| Lawn Squad | Lawn care | Referenced in franchisee disputes |
| Soflo Pools and Spas | Pool and spa services | Part of portfolio |
| Conserva Irrigation | Water conservation irrigation | Part of portfolio |
| DRYmedic Restoration Services | Water and fire restoration | Included in portfolio disputes |
| Bumble Roofing | Roofing | Included in franchise concerns |
Not every brand has equal legal exposure. Some brands within the portfolio had their own operational structures and franchisee communities. Franchisees from specific brands may have different levels of legal standing depending on when they signed, what their specific agreements said, and what promises were made to them directly.
The breadth of the portfolio matters. It means that even if a franchisee purchased under one brand name, the parent company Horsepower Brands LLC is the entity that made corporate-level promises and signed off on the FDDs.
Key Takeaway: The lawsuit is not limited to one brand. Franchisees across several of Horsepower Brands’ portfolio companies may have standing to bring claims based on their individual experiences.
Is the Horsepower Brands Case a Class Action?
The Horsepower Brands case involves elements of both individual litigation and potential class action proceedings, but it is not a single certified class action as of 2026.
Many franchise disputes start as individual cases. Class action certification in franchise litigation is notoriously difficult because franchise agreements vary by brand, state, date, and individual negotiation. Courts often find that the individual issues in each franchise case outweigh the common issues, which is the primary requirement for class certification.
However, several factors in the Horsepower Brands situation push toward collective action:
- Similar allegations across multiple franchisees and brands
- Common FDD documents used for broad groups of franchisees
- Shared corporate decision-making at the Horsepower Brands parent level
- Coordinated legal representation by franchise-specialist attorneys
Many Horsepower Brands franchise agreements also contain mandatory arbitration clauses. These clauses require franchisees to resolve disputes through private arbitration rather than public court proceedings. This is a common tool franchisors use to prevent class actions.
| Litigation Path | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Lawsuits | Active | Multiple cases in various courts |
| Arbitration Claims | Active | Arbitration clauses in many agreements |
| Class Action | Not yet certified | Ongoing legal strategy discussions |
| Regulatory Complaints | Filed | State authorities reviewing |
The arbitration issue is one of the biggest challenges for franchisees seeking collective relief. Attorneys are actively examining whether those clauses are enforceable given the nature of the alleged fraud.
Who Qualifies for the Horsepower Brands Lawsuit?
Current and former Horsepower Brands franchisees are the primary parties who may qualify to bring legal claims related to this lawsuit.
Eligibility generally depends on several factors:
- When you signed your franchise agreement (earlier signatories may have different FDD disclosures than later ones)
- Which brand you purchased under the Horsepower Brands umbrella
- What specific promises were made to you during the sales process
- Whether you suffered documented financial losses as a result of alleged misrepresentations
- Whether you are still within the applicable statute of limitations for your state and claim type
Statutes of limitations for fraud and contract claims vary by state, typically ranging from two to six years from the date the franchisee discovered or should have discovered the harm.
| Qualifying Factor | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Active or former franchisee status | Defines standing to bring a claim |
| Purchase date | Affects which FDD was provided and applicable law |
| Documented financial loss | Required to prove damages |
| State of operation | Determines which state franchise laws apply |
| Evidence of promises made | Supports misrepresentation claims |
Prospective franchisees who were in the sales process but never signed, and who can show they suffered damages as a result of the process, may also have limited grounds to pursue claims in some jurisdictions.
Key Takeaway: If you paid a franchise fee to any Horsepower Brands company and experienced the failures alleged in these cases, you should document every promise made to you and every expense you incurred, because that paper trail is the foundation of any legal claim.
What Are Horsepower Brands Franchisees Claiming?
Franchisees in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit are claiming a wide range of harms tied directly to their financial and personal losses.
The emotional and financial toll on franchisees in these cases is real. Many of these people left corporate careers, cashed out retirement accounts, or mortgaged their homes to invest in these franchises. The claims reflect that reality.
Specific categories of damages franchisees are seeking include:
- Return of initial franchise fees paid (often $40,000 to $150,000 or more)
- Recovery of ongoing royalty payments made while support was allegedly absent
- Reimbursement of buildout costs, equipment purchases, and marketing expenditures
- Lost business profits based on what was promised in financial projections
- Consequential damages for harm caused by business failure (lost income, credit damage)
- In fraud cases, punitive damages to punish the company’s conduct
The personal stories coming out of this litigation are consistent in their shape: a hardworking person believed in a company, wrote a check, worked hard, and got far less than promised.
| Damage Category | Typical Range Claimed |
|---|---|
| Franchise fee recovery | $40,000 to $150,000+ |
| Royalties paid | Variable by brand and duration |
| Buildout and equipment costs | $20,000 to $80,000+ |
| Lost profits | Depends on projections provided |
| Punitive damages | If fraud proven: 2x to 3x actual damages |
These numbers are why this lawsuit matters. For families who invested their financial futures, recovery through litigation may be the only path to rebuilding.
Horsepower Brands Lawsuit Settlement: Is There a Deal?
No confirmed global settlement in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit has been announced as of 2026.
That said, it is common in franchise litigation for some individual cases to settle privately while others proceed through arbitration or court. Settlement negotiations in franchise disputes often happen quietly, with non-disclosure agreements preventing franchisees who do settle from speaking publicly.
What we know about the settlement landscape:
- No public class settlement has been announced or approved
- Individual settlements may have occurred in specific cases but are not publicly disclosed
- Attorneys for franchisees have indicated they are pursuing maximum recovery for their clients
- Mediation attempts have reportedly occurred in some related disputes without final resolution
For any settlement to address the full scope of the lawsuit, it would need to cover franchisees across multiple brands, which adds significant complexity to any negotiation.
| Settlement Factor | Current Status |
|---|---|
| Global class settlement | Not confirmed |
| Individual case settlements | Possible but not public |
| Mediation | Reported in some cases |
| Horsepower Brands position | Disputed |
| Expected timeline | Uncertain in 2026 |
The absence of a public settlement is not unusual at this stage. Most complex franchise litigation takes three to five years from initial filing to final resolution, whether through settlement or verdict.
Horsepower Brands Lawsuit Payout: What Could Claimants Receive?
The potential payout in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit depends heavily on what claims succeed and what individual franchisees can prove in their specific cases.
There is no guaranteed payout number. What exists are the damage categories franchisees are pursuing and the ranges seen in comparable franchise fraud cases nationally.
Here is a realistic breakdown of what claimants might expect based on legal precedent in similar franchise litigation:
| Outcome Scenario | Potential Recovery Range |
|---|---|
| Breach of contract only | 50% to 100% of actual documented losses |
| Misrepresentation proven | 75% to 125% of actual losses |
| Fraud proven without punitive | 100% to 150% of actual losses |
| Fraud with punitive damages | 200% to 300% of actual losses |
| Negotiated settlement (typical) | 40% to 70% of actual losses |
For a franchisee who invested $120,000 total in fees, buildout, and early operating costs:
- A settlement at 50 percent would yield roughly $60,000
- A court verdict on fraud grounds could reach $240,000 to $360,000 before legal fees
Legal fees matter too. Most franchise attorneys in these cases work on contingency, meaning they take a percentage of recovery rather than billing hourly. Contingency fees typically run 30 to 40 percent of recovery.
Key Takeaway: Actual recovery amounts vary significantly by claim strength and legal path taken. Franchisees with documented fraud evidence and clear financial records have the strongest potential for meaningful recovery.
Horsepower Brands Court Filing 2026: Key Documents and Dates
The court filings in the Horsepower Brands litigation contain the formal legal record of what franchisees allege and what the company has argued in response.
Key filing types in this litigation include:
- Original complaints setting out the factual allegations and legal theories
- Motions to compel arbitration filed by Horsepower Brands in cases where arbitration clauses apply
- Discovery requests seeking financial records, internal communications, and sales training materials
- Opposition briefs from franchisee attorneys challenging arbitration clause enforceability
- Amended complaints updating allegations as new evidence is uncovered
| Filing Type | Significance |
|---|---|
| Original complaints | Establishes the legal record |
| Arbitration motions | Determines whether case stays in court |
| Discovery orders | Unlocks internal company documents |
| Amended complaints | Reflects strength of growing evidence |
| Class certification motions | Would allow franchisees to join collectively |
As of 2026, discovery in several related cases is ongoing. Discovery is the phase where attorneys can demand internal emails, financial projections, sales scripts, and communications that either support or undermine the franchisee claims.
Internal company documents are often the most damaging evidence in franchise fraud cases. If Horsepower Brands’ own emails show that leadership knew its support infrastructure was inadequate while still selling franchises, that is the kind of evidence that drives settlements and large verdicts.
Horsepower Brands Legal Action 2026: What Comes Next?
The most active phase of the Horsepower Brands legal action in 2026 is the discovery and pre-trial period across multiple individual cases and arbitrations.
Looking at the expected trajectory:
| Timeline Phase | Expected Period | Key Events |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery completion | Mid to late 2026 | Internal documents reviewed |
| Arbitration hearings | Throughout 2026 | Individual cases decided |
| Potential class certification motion | Late 2026 | Court ruling on collective claims |
| Settlement negotiations intensify | Late 2026 to 2027 | Pressure from discovery findings |
| Trial or final resolution | 2027 | Individual or group outcomes |
The outcome of arbitration proceedings in 2026 will set important precedents for the broader litigation. If franchisees win in arbitration, those results create momentum for settlement in remaining cases.
Regulatory activity is another wild card. If state attorneys general or the FTC take formal action against Horsepower Brands based on the complaint volume, that would significantly accelerate the legal timeline and likely trigger a broader settlement.
The legal action in 2026 is at a critical inflection point. Discovery is where cases are won or lost. If the documentary evidence supports what franchisees allege, the company’s legal position becomes much harder to defend.
Is Horsepower Brands Still Operating in 2026?
Horsepower Brands LLC is reported to still exist as an entity in 2026, but its operational status and franchise sales activity have contracted significantly compared to its peak years.
The company has faced substantial financial and reputational pressure as a result of the ongoing litigation. Several of its portfolio brands have experienced reduced franchisee counts, and the company’s ability to attract new franchise investors has reportedly diminished.
Key questions about current operations:
- Is Horsepower Brands still selling new franchises? Reports suggest significantly reduced activity
- Are existing franchisees receiving support? Disputed and varies by brand and individual relationship
- Has the company restructured? Some leadership and operational changes have been reported
- Are brands in the portfolio still operating? Individual brands vary in current status
| Operational Area | Reported Status in 2026 |
|---|---|
| New franchise sales | Significantly reduced |
| Existing franchisee support | Disputed and inconsistent |
| Company financial health | Under pressure |
| Brand portfolio | Some brands reduced or restructured |
| Legal defense posture | Active defense ongoing |
The practical takeaway for current franchisees is important. A company under severe financial stress may have limited ability to provide promised support even if it wants to. Franchisees who are currently struggling should document every support request and every failure to respond.
Horsepower Brands CEO Legal Trouble: What the Lawsuit Says About Leadership
Josh Skolnick, the founder and CEO of Horsepower Brands, is named or referenced in franchisee complaints that question the company’s leadership decisions and the representations made under his direction.
The legal claims touching on leadership focus on:
- Whether Skolnick and other executives had personal knowledge that support systems were inadequate
- Whether earnings claims made under his leadership were based on real data
- Whether leadership directed sales representatives to make promises the company could not keep
- Whether executive decisions about resource allocation contributed directly to franchisee failures
In franchise fraud cases, individual officers can sometimes face personal liability alongside the corporate entity. This depends on state law, the nature of their involvement, and whether they are shown to have directly participated in fraudulent conduct.
| Leadership Allegation Type | Legal Significance |
|---|---|
| Personal involvement in misrepresentations | Opens door to personal liability |
| Knowledge of false earnings claims | Supports fraud finding |
| Directing inadequate support operations | Relevant to breach claims |
| Financial decisions harming franchisees | Relevant to damages |
It is worth being precise here. Allegations in a lawsuit are not proven facts. Skolnick and Horsepower Brands have disputed the characterizations made by franchisee plaintiffs.
The legal process exists to determine what actually happened. The CEO and company will have full opportunity to present their side through discovery, hearings, and any eventual trial or arbitration.
Key Takeaway: Leadership accountability is a central theme in the Horsepower Brands litigation. Whether individual executives face personal liability will depend on what the evidence shows about their direct involvement in the alleged conduct.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Horsepower Brands lawsuit about?
The Horsepower Brands lawsuit involves allegations by current and former franchisees that the company committed fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract during franchise sales and operations.
Franchisees claim they were given false financial projections, inadequate support, and broken promises that caused significant financial losses.
The case spans multiple home service brands owned by Horsepower Brands LLC.
Who can file a claim in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit?
Current and former franchisees who purchased under any Horsepower Brands umbrella company and suffered financial losses may have standing to file a claim.
Eligibility depends on purchase date, the specific promises made, documented losses, and the statute of limitations in your state.
Anyone who believes they qualify should gather all their franchise documents, financial records, and communications with company representatives immediately.
Has Horsepower Brands reached a settlement in 2026?
No confirmed global settlement in the Horsepower Brands lawsuit has been publicly announced as of 2026.
Individual cases may have resolved privately, but no class-wide or public settlement agreement is in place.
The litigation remains active and ongoing across multiple forums including courts and arbitration.
How much money could franchisees recover from the Horsepower Brands lawsuit?
Recovery amounts depend on each franchisee’s specific losses and which legal claims succeed.
In comparable franchise fraud cases, claimants have recovered between 40 and 300 percent of their documented losses depending on whether fraud or just breach of contract is proven.
A franchisee with $120,000 in total documented losses might see anywhere from $48,000 in a low settlement to $360,000 or more if fraud with punitive damages is established.
Is Horsepower Brands still selling franchises in 2026?
Horsepower Brands has significantly reduced its franchise sales activity in 2026 amid ongoing litigation and reputational pressure.
Some of its portfolio brands continue to operate, but the company’s expansion pace has slowed considerably.
Prospective investors should review any current FDD with extreme care and seek independent legal counsel before signing any agreement.
What This Means for You Right Now
The Horsepower Brands lawsuit is still moving through the legal system in 2026, and the window for affected franchisees to protect their rights is not unlimited. Statutes of limitations are real deadlines. Missing them means losing your legal options permanently.
If you are a current or former franchisee under any Horsepower Brands company, start gathering your documents now. That means your franchise agreement, the FDD you received, every piece of written communication about financial projections, and every financial record showing what you spent and what you earned.
The franchisees who will be in the strongest position when this case resolves are the ones with the clearest paper trails and the most thorough documentation of what they were promised versus what they received. Do not wait for someone else to tell you it is time to act.
