United States: California Assembly Bill 1228 would expose fast food franchisors to liability for franchisees’ wage, hour and other violations

In brief

California Assembly Bill 1228 or, the “Fast Food Franchisor Responsibility Act” (“Bill”) seeks to make fast food franchisors liable for certain civil violations committed by their franchisees. The Bill was passed by the California Assembly on May 31 and awaits a vote in the Senate. If signed into law in its current form, the Bill would drastically increase the legal exposure of certain franchisors in the fast-food industry. 


In September 2022, the California State Legislature passed A.B. 257, the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (“FAST Act”). The FAST Act provides for the creation of the country’s first state-run “Fast Food Council” staffed by a mixture of government employees, workers, union representatives, and employers that would establish industry standards for wages, hours, and working conditions. The initial draft of the FAST Act also created joint liability for fast food franchisors for the actions of their franchisees, but that provision was excluded in the final bill passed by the Senate. Prior to the FAST Act taking effect, vocal opponents of the law filed a petition for a referendum to be placed on the general election ballot in 2024, which has resulted in enforcement of the FAST Act being delayed until the referendum is decided. Regardless of whether the FAST Act becomes enforceable, however, the Bill would revive its excluded joint employer liability provisions.

In depth

On February 16, Chris Holden—the California Assembly member representing Pasadena—introduced the Bill, which would add a new section to the California Labor Code. The stated aim of the Bill is to force franchisors to “take greater responsibility for achieving compliance with employer laws throughout their franchise networks” by “appropriately allocat[ing] the costs and risks of liability for employment violations”, “incentiviz[ing] franchisors to do their part to ensure and enable compliance with employment laws, and ensur[ing] that harmed individuals can receive a full recovery".

The Bill provides for shared civil liability for fast food franchisors with more than one hundred locations when a franchisee violates any of the following: the Fair Housing and Employment Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code, California Labor Code provisions relating to immigration status, California Labor Code provisions relating to contracts against public policy, CalOSHA regulations, the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and other state, county, or municipal orders regarding employment standards, worker health and safety, and public health and safety.

Before imposing joint liability, the Bill gives franchisors a 30-day (or 60-day, if requested to complete an investigation) window to “cure” alleged violations of the covered laws. To “cure,” the franchisor must abate the alleged violations, ensure that its franchisee is in compliance with the relevant laws, and “ma[k]e whole” “any fast food restaurant workers against whom a violation was committed”. The Bill does not define how a worker would be determined to be made “whole”.

Additionally, the Bill provides safeguards to avoid circumvention. Specifically, the Bill prohibits agreements which seek to waive the joint liability it creates, as well as agreements to indemnify franchisors and franchise agreements which “create a substantial barrier” to franchisees complying with the employment law provisions listed above. The Bill lists as a potential “substantial barrier” franchise agreements that provide insufficient funds for a franchisee to comply with these laws. The Bill does not provide guidance as to what “insufficient funds” might mean in this context, but provides for a rebuttable presumption that any changes to franchise agreements which increase the costs of the franchise would create a substantial barrier to compliance. Franchisees can sue franchisors for monetary or injunctive relief necessary to remove such barriers and ensure that the franchisee can comply with the law.

Key takeaways

  • The Bill creates joint employer civil liability for certain fast food restaurant franchisors for employment-related violations of law by franchisees.
  • Franchisors have an opportunity to avoid joint liability by curing the violation within 30 days (or 60 days, if an investigation is warranted).
  • Franchisors must rebut a presumption that any increase in costs to franchisees is an attempt to impose “substantial barriers” to compliance with employment laws by franchisees.
  • Franchisees who allege that a “substantial barrier” to compliance with the prescribed laws has been imposed by a franchisor may bring suit against the franchisor for monetary and/or injunctive relief to ensure compliance.

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.