Claims of illness or injury relating to food quality or food handling are common in the food service industry, and vehicular accidents and injuries occur in the food delivery business. We are currently subject to these types of claims and have been subject to these types of claims in the past. Claims within our industry of improper supplier actions also occasionally arise that, if made against one of our suppliers, could potentially damage our brand image.
In addition, class action lawsuits have been filed, and may continue to be filed, against various QSRs alleging, among other things, that QSRs have failed to disclose the health risks associated with high-fat foods and that QSR marketing practices have encouraged obesity. State attorney general offices or other regulators have initiated and may in the future initiate investigations or enforcement actions against us. In addition to decreasing our sales and profitability and diverting our management resources, adverse publicity resulting from such allegations may materially and adversely affect us and our brand, regardless of whether such allegations are valid or whether we are liable, and could result in a substantial settlement, fine, penalty or judgment against us. Further, we may be subject to employee, franchisee and other claims in the future based on, among other things, discrimination, harassment, working and safety conditions, wrongful termination and wage, expense reimbursement, rest break and meal break issues, including claims relating to minimum wage and overtime compensation. We and our international master franchisees have been and continue to be subject to these types of claims. If one or more of these claims were to be successful or if there is a significant increase in the number of these claims or if we receive significant negative publicity, our business, financial condition and operating results could be harmed. We and our franchisees are subject to extensive laws and government regulation and requirements issued by other groups and our failure to comply with existing or increased laws and regulations could adversely affect our business and operating results.
We are subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations, as well as requirements issued by other groups, including those relating to:
- the preparation, sale and labeling of food;- building and zoning requirements and environmental protection;- labor and employment, including minimum wage, overtime, insurance, discrimination and other labor requirements as well as working and safety conditions;- franchise arrangements;- taxation;- antitrust;- payment card industry standards and requirements; and - advertising, social media, information privacy and consumer protection.
We are subject to an FTC rule and to various state and foreign laws that govern the offer and sale of franchises. These laws regulate various aspects of the franchise relationship, including terminations and the refusal to renew franchises. The failure to comply with these laws and regulations in any jurisdiction or to obtain required government approvals could result in a ban or temporary suspension on future franchise sales, fines or other penalties or require us to make offers of rescission or restitution, any of which could adversely affect our business.
We and our franchisees face various regulatory and legislative efforts to enforce employment laws, such as efforts to categorize franchisors as the co-employers or joint employers of their franchisees' employees or to aggregate individual franchised businesses and classify them as large employers for minimum wage or other employment-related purposes. In October 2023, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") adopted a final rule with a new and broader standard grounded in common law agency principles for determining when two or more otherwise unrelated employers may be found to be a joint employer of the same employees under the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA"). The NLRB's final rule is scheduled to go into effect on February 26, 2024; if it is adopted by other government agencies and/or applied generally to franchise relationships, it could cause us to be liable or held responsible for unfair labor practices and other violations of our franchisees and subject us to other liabilities, and require us to conduct collective bargaining negotiations regarding employees of totally separate, independent employers, most notably our franchisees. In such event, our operating expenses may increase as a result of required modifications to our business practices, increased litigation, governmental investigations or proceedings, administrative enforcement actions, fines and civil liability.
Additionally, based upon the outcome and application of recent legal proceedings in federal court in California involving the California wage and hour laws in another franchise system, franchisors may be subject to claims that their franchisees should be treated as employees and not as independent contractors under the wage and hour laws of that state and, potentially, certain other states and localities with similar wage and hour laws. The California legislature has enacted a statute known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5), which went into effect on January 1, 2020. AB-5 requires "gig economy" workers to be reclassified as employees instead of independent contractors. However, depending upon the application of AB-5, franchisors in certain industries could be deemed to be covered by the statute, in which event certain franchisees could be deemed employees of the franchisors. While active efforts to narrow the reach of AB-5 continue, a bill (SB 967), which was introduced specifically to exempt the relationship between a franchisor and franchisee from the scope of AB-5, was not successful in the legislature.
On November 3, 2020, the California electorate approved proposition 22, the effect of which is to exempt app-based transportation (ride shares) and delivery drivers from the application of AB-5 by treating these workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. The ballot measure does not affect how AB-5 applies to other businesses and workers. Given that misclassification claims have been successful against or applied to a franchisor under AB-5 and may be successful under similar state laws, a franchisor could be liable to its franchisees (and potentially their employees) based the rights and remedies available to employees under such laws and, thereafter, have to treat its franchisees (and their employees) as the franchisor's employees under these laws.
We and our franchisees are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (the "FLSA"), which, along with the Family and Medical Leave Act, governs such matters as minimum wage and overtime requirements and other working conditions and various family leave mandates, as well as a variety of other laws enacted, or rules and regulations promulgated, by federal, state and local governmental authorities that govern these and other employment matters. We and our franchisees have experienced and expect further increases in payroll expenses as a result of government-mandated increases in the minimum wage, some specific to employees of national fast food chains, which may be material, including as a result of California's AB 1228. Enactment and enforcement of various federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations on immigration and labor organizations may adversely impact the availability and costs of labor for Domino's and franchisees' stores in a particular area or across the United States. In addition, third-party suppliers may be affected by higher minimum wage standards, which may increase the price of goods and services they supply to us. Such increased expenses may cause our franchisees to exit the business or cause us to reduce the number of Company-owned stores, or otherwise adversely affect the amount of royalty payments and license fees we receive. On January 12, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a final rule to update and clarify the definition of joint employer under the FLSA. Under the final rule, the general test for assessing whether a party can be deemed a joint employer would be based upon whether that party (i) hires or fires the employee; (ii) supervises and controls the employee's work schedule or conditions of employment; (iii) determines the employee's rate and method of payment; and (iv) maintains the employee's employment records. In the final rule, the Department of Labor describes instances in which joint employment would not be more or less likely to be found to exist under the FLSA, which, according to the Department of Labor, includes the relationships that exist under the typical franchise business model. This rule may reduce a franchisor's risk of liability that currently exists under the joint employer standard now in effect under the FLSA (though ultimately, the facts specific to the franchisor-franchisee model at issue would be considered when determining liability). On July 29, 2021, the current administration's Department of Labor issued a final rule rescinding the 2020 rule. The Department of Labor may revert to the more expansive interpretation of joint employer that existed prior to the adoption of the 2020 rule and/or interpretations that could result in franchisors being held liable or responsible for FLSA violations by their franchisees. The rules of the Department of Labor are separate from the joint employer standard under the NLRA or, as described above, potential liability as a joint employer under the NLRA.
In October 2023, the FTC proposed a rule targeting misleading and hidden fees and how businesses may advertise and market prices to consumers; a law addressing hidden fees will take effect in California starting July 1, 2024 after Senate Bill No. 478 was signed into law. The ultimate scope of these rules and laws is currently unknown, but could be determined to apply to restaurants and fees such as delivery fees, service charges or surcharges that could impact the way we advertise to consumers. To the extent our advertising is negatively impacted, our business could be adversely affected.
Certain governmental authorities and private litigants have recently asserted claims against franchisors, including us, for provisions in our prior franchise agreements that restrict franchisees from soliciting or hiring the employees of other franchisees or the applicable franchisor. Claims against franchisors for such clauses include allegations that these clauses violate state and federal antitrust and unfair practices laws by restricting the free movement of employees of franchisees and/or franchisor (including the employees of Company-owned stores), thereby depressing the wages of those employees.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as amended, the "Affordable Care Act") requires employers such as us to provide health insurance for all qualifying employees or pay penalties for not providing coverage. The majority of the increases in these costs began in 2015, and while the incremental costs of this program have not been material to us to date, we cannot predict what effect these costs will have on our results of operations and financial position, or the effects of the Affordable Care Act on some of our larger franchisees. Modifications to, or repeal of, all or certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act are also possible. Changes in tax laws or tax policy more broadly, increases in the enacted tax rates, adverse outcomes in connection with tax audits in any jurisdiction or any change in the pronouncements relating to accounting for income taxes could also impact our financial condition and results of operations.
We may also become subject to legislation or regulation seeking to tax and/or regulate high-fat foods, foods with high sugar and salt content, or foods otherwise deemed to be "unhealthy," and our capital expenditures could increase due to remediation and compliance measures related to these laws or regulations.
Adverse government regulations and enforcement efforts or non-compliance by us or our franchisees with any of the foregoing laws and regulations could lead to various claims or governmental or judicial fines, sanctions or other enforcement measures, which could negatively impact our business.