THE UPS STORE Franchise Warning: It’s a Scam Claims Franchisee

April 1, 2013

THE UPS STORE Franchise Warning: Franchisee calls it a scam designed to make money for UPS at the expense of its franchise owners.

UnhappyFranchisee.Com has received another in a long line of complaints about The UPS Store franchise opportunity.

This UPS Store franchise owner even read the many warnings here and elsewhere about The UPS Store, but let himself be convinced by the franchise salesman that the complaints were unfounded.

He and his wife proceeded with the purchase of a The UPS Store franchise and have regretted it ever since.

He claims that UPS controls every aspect of his business, and has engineered the entire business model to make sure that UPS gets maximum profits while he is bled dry.

Do you have any experience with The UPS Store franchise – good or bad? Please share your experience in the comment section below.

The UPS Store Franchise “should be against the law.” – UPS Store Franchisee

The UPS Store Franchise Owner writes:

My wife and i purchased and opened a UPS Store.

I read some of the bad comments on line but was assure by the local UPS Store Franchisee that they were not true that was only one of the things he told us that wasn’t true.

I only have one thing to say. The UPS Store is a huge money maker for UPS and not the store owners.

They drain you and drain you of both money and energy.

They say you are self employed but control everything you do from the time you walk in the door until the time you leave, You work for UPS but receive zero of the rewards.

UPS makes money on everything you do and the items they make you buy from them, which is everything.

They require you to use systems they approve for everything and get kick backs from the services you are forced to buy.

Financially they drain your accounts with everything you have and don’t care if you can feed your family or not.

They take shipping from you and call you a "Print Shop" but require you to buy inferior equipment a real print shop would not get caught dead with.

I could go on for a very long time but I’m sitting here in my UPS Store knowing how they have taken advantage of me and my family should be against the law.

More on The UPS Store franchise:

THE UPS STORE: How Much Do UPS Store Franchise Owners Make?

THE UPS STORE Franchise Complaints

Are THE UPS STORE / MAIL BOXES ETC. Franchise Owners Happy?

THE UPS STORE: Overview

ARE YOU UPS STORE FRANCHISE OWNER OR FRANCHISEE? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE UPS STORE FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: The UPS Store, The UPS Store franchise, The UPS Store franchise complaints, The UPS Store franchise warning, UPS Store complaints, UPS store lawsuit, UPS store unhappy franchisee, unhappy franchisee, unhappyfranchisee.com, UPS franchise scam, UPS Store failure rate, UPS store franchise cost

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, Service franchise, UPS Store

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING (USAMDT)

January 15, 2013

USA Mobile Drug Testing Franchisees Allege Fraud

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, Service franchise, SPOTLIGHT 1, USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchisees Complain to FTC

January 15, 2013

USA Mobile Drug Testing (USAMDT) franchisees are pissed. Really pissed.

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com ) A group of USAMDT franchise owners hired franchisee attorney Mario Herman, who notified CEO Joe Strom that his clients have been defrauded, are terminating their agreements, and are demanding $635,000 in damages.

(Read attorney Herman’s letter here: USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchisees Rebel, Cry Fraud)

The franchisee group feels that it has been deceived and misled, and want as many people to know about it as possible.

Franchise lead generation and broker network FranNet has reportedly dropped USAMDT from its franchise portfolio because of the controversy.

The renegade group of franchisees has reportedly started a campaign to notify news media, industry suppliers and government organizations.

Last week, the USAMDT franchise owners contacted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

They have supplied UnhappyFranchisee.Com with a copy of their complaint letter, reproduced below:

January 9, 2013

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Room 286

Washington, DC 20580

Attn: Craig Tregillus

Dear Craig,

It was nice talking to you today. A group of former USA Mobile Franchisees are requesting an investigation into the Fraudulent and Unlawful Practices that the franchisor, Joseph Strom Jr., CEO, of USA Mobile Drug Testing LLC (USAMDT), 15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 220 Tampa FL 33647, has used and continues to use in selling USA Mobile Drug Testing franchises.

Franchisee complaints include allegations of deceptive sales tactics, improper franchise disclosure, making improper earnings claims and financial representations, trying to keep prospective franchisees from talking to current franchisees, and the misrepresentation of vendors as franchisor employees.

The transgressions include but are not limited to:

1. John Cohen, co-owner of Rhino 7, is listed on the USAMDT organizational chart as the VP Franchise Sales. The email signatures and how they present themselves leads a prospect to believe they are all employees of USAMDT which is untrue. Rhino 7 is a franchise business development company hired by USAMDT for the purposes of selling franchises.

2. Rhino 7 offers prospective buyers pre-recorded validation calls only. A prospect must be extremely insistent in order to get just 1 live validation call set up. The list of franchisees contact information is not available to them during the sales cycle. All pre-recorded validation calls are carefully monitored and mediated by the Rhino 7 sales director.

3. Illegal earnings claims are posted on the Internet stating: “Net Annual Earnings of

$145,745.”

4. Entrepreneur.com states 77 franchises at the end of 2011, the USA Mobile Franchise

Disclosure Document (“FDD”) states 40.

5. Entrepreneur.com states 93 franchises at the end of 2012, USA Mobile website indicates 51 franchises. 8 of those redirect to the corporate 855 phone number because they have been shut down; 43 are operational franchises.

6. The Financial Performance Representation in the FDD is not based on a USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise, but is actually A&B Employer Solutions, Inc. (“A&B”), owned by Aron Galinovsky which operates its drug testing business as an add-on to a previously existing business.

7. A&B did not have to pay a $49,900.00 franchise fee that a new franchisee would have to pay.

8. A&B and Aron Galinovsky did not have to pay 9% royalties on its gross sales, which would amount to $29,630.00.

9. A&B and Aron Galinovsky has paid no royalties, ad fund contributions, or other required expenses that a new franchisee would have to incur. A&B did not have to pay the Roll-Out Advertising of $10,500.00 for its first three months (now mandatory at$19,500.00). This fact should have been properly disclosed, and its purposeful omission is deceptive and fraudulent.

10. Per Exhibit F-1 of the 2012 FDD – Operational Franchisees – Aron Galinovsky is still listed as an operational USAMDT franchisee even though it is stated in the 2012 FDD that Mr. Galinovsky stopped operating all of the USA Mobile Drug Testing products, services and systems at the end of 2011.

11. Per Exhibit F-2 of the 2012 FDD – Former USAMDT Franchisees – Mr. Galinovsky is not listed as a former franchisee in 2011 or 2012.

12. Per the validation tapes still in circulation, Mr. Galinovsky is still used to discuss the profitability of purchasing a USAMDT franchise.

13. On the www.USAMDT.com website – New Haven CT is still listed as a USAMDT franchise.

14. On the USAMDT internal franchisee contact log – Aron Galinovsky is still listed as a franchisee even though he does not know his USAMDT email address or password.

Your prompt attention to this matter is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Concerned USAMDT Franchisees

One thing that has the group especially upset is that they believe USAMDT and their outsources franchise sales organization, Rhino7, continues to promote the flawed franchise using the same allegedly bogus and misleading earnings claims, as well as misrepresentations regarding the size and health of the USAMDT system.

Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that CEO Joe Strom refuses to address the complaints about the misleading earnings claims, or even confirm how many USAMDT franchises are still in business.

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Complaints

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Strom Spins Franchisee Defection

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH JOE STROM, USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING OR THE USAMDT FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

Tags: USA Mobile Drug Testing, USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise, USA Mobile Drug Testing complaints, USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise complaints, USA Mobile Drug Testing failure rate, USAMDT, Federal Trade Commission, FTC, drug testing franchise, mobile drug testing, Joseph Strom, Joe Strom, Rhino7

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, Service franchise, USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchisee Challenges CEO Joe Strom

January 6, 2013

A USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise owner is challenging CEO Joe Strom’s recent email message to USAMDT franchise owners.

In a January 2, 2013 email, Strom told his remaining franchisees that he had terminated a group of 7 franchise groups for violating their franchise agreements.

[Read excerpts from Strom’s email here: USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Strom Spins Franchisee Defection]

However, UnhappyFranchisee.Com had published a letter sent to Strom a week earlier stating that the same group of franchisees were initiating their departure due to fraud on the part of Strom and USAMDT.

The group, represented by franchisee attorney Mario Herman, also demanded $635,000 in combined damages.

UnhappyFranchisee.Com has invited CEO Strom for clarification or a rebuttal, but have not received a response.

We did, however, receive this letter from one of the Rebel Franchisees (DrugTestinistas?) challenging Joe Strom’s characterization of the defecting owners as the threat to the system.

The greater threat, according to the unnamed USAMDT franchise owner, is Mr. Strom’s leadership and business practices.

Here is the anonymous letter, received today via email:

There is not much to be surprised when reading the excerpts from Mr. Strom’s letter to the franchisees. It is nothing but same BS song in all his desperate letters released every time the stuff hits the fan in his house. Lately, the stuff hit the fan so many times that his lamentable messages are easily predictable. Since Mr. Strom has nothing of substance to say, he is always hiding behind “patriotic” phrases:

"Our job is to protect your franchised business"…"the terminated franchisees threatened the greater good of all your business and the USAMDT brand".

Hold on! This sounds familiar. Didn’t we hear similar calls to defend Motherland, Fatherland coming from similar characters? It is just a matter of time (next defection?) until Mr. Strom will demand the remaining franchisees to raise barricades, burn the fields, poison the water and arm themselves to the teeth (men, women and children) to protect "The Brandland".

Question: Mr. Strom, what kind of threat do you see in a group of frustrated franchisees who decided to part because they lost enough money by being associated with YOU?

There is a limit to what one can take when dealing with a deceptive, unethical and erratic Strom. If you are looking for someone who is threatening USAMDT’s brand, look no further, Mr. Strom: Just look in the mirror! Ask the people from the USAMDT management team who left your house or who barely spent a couple of weeks working with you in 2012. They had enough of your managing style, just like the “terminated franchisees”, as you call the group who decided to divorce you.

In his letter to the franchisees, Mr. Joe “The Terminator” Strom states that he will take legal action against the group of rebels:

“We are taking legal action to insure that these former franchisees do not entrench on any of your territories or your business both in your territory and the surrounding territories”.

(Oops… what’s that word? “entrench”? Someone else hit already that nail… It’s legalese, so, let’s move on.)

Question: Mr. Strom, if you take legal action against the rebel group, are you going to take legal action against Aron Galinovky, A&B Employer Solutions (aka "USAMDT Franchise Model") who, according to your website and the FDD, is the New Haven franchisee but operates happily without adorning the USAMDT brand?

In the aforementioned letter, a somehow humble Mr. Joe “The Terminator” Strom states some ridiculous facts. Read carefully the following fragment of his letter:

“Additionally, the Franchisee Advisory Board has been meeting every week on the phone for the last three weeks to discuss and work through some growing pains and concerns that some of you have brought up. We have concluded our meetings for 2012 and I will be releasing the notes on those meetings shortly. Those notes take a bit longer to put together since the meetings took place for over four hours.”

Let’s see…

The number of meetings held in 2012 by Strom (yes, the whole year!) to deal with “some growing pains and concerns some of you have brought” equals 3 (three).

“Some” growing pains? Are you kidding us? In reality, essentially every day of the year your franchisees complained about the endless series of mistakes bordering crass incompetence made by Strom’s HQ: Unrealistic marketing materials, undisclosed costs in the background checking, after-hours/rush service hotline, test results management mistakes, etc. All these mistakes were costly and the complaints point straight to the poor level of support Strom’s HQ provides to the franchisees. One example, amongst so many others: USAMDT’s after-hours/rush service hotline 855-USA-TEST still doesn’t work! How many years since implemented by the HQ? Incredibly, USAMDT’s slogan proudly screams: “We are available 24/7. We come to you! Call us.” Call who? And who’s calling the franchisees?

The “notes” of the meetings held by Mr. “Terminator” to deal with the growing pains are to be released “shortly”. Umm, not exactly… because writing the notes “takes a bit longer” (Ahaaa!). The rest of the business world knows these notes by the correct name, “minutes”. And these minutes are usually taken by a meeting attendee who is knowledgeable in the matters discussed. By now, you, the reader already figured out who takes ”notes” at the growing-pains meetings: no one but Mr. Joe “The Terminator” Strom himself. This explains why the notes take “a bit longer” to be released. In reality, it takes few months to… never until released. (The hope is that the growing pains will eventually go away).

Question: Mr. Strom, are you going to post your biography on your own website to proudly show to the rest of us your level of expertise and experience in the drug and alcohol testing industry?

With the recent departure of Casey Neubert, Director of Education and Compliance (wonder why?) there is no one left in your HQ team with ANY experience and knowledge of the industry. The two consultants that you pay are not actually your employees. They are contractors, they do for you what they do for any other TPA, as long as they get paid. (One of the two consultants was not cautious enough and let you display his bio on your website. He may reconsider.) We all think it’s about time for you to post your biography under “About USAMDT”. Show us what you have, Mr. Strom as a credible leader of a drug testing company. After all, you sell your expertise and brand name to others.

It’s time to stop here. Unless one wants to have fun or is a first time reader of “letters to franchisees” lamentable series, it is really not worth paying attention to Strom’s rhetoric, Brandland patriotism and pathetic attempts to legalese.

LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise Complaints

January 4, 2013

Lady Bug Pest Control is a small eco-friendly franchise company that has generated a complaint from one of its few franchise owners.

Franchisee Lisa Alfaro claims she was sold a Lady Bug Pest Control franchise despite the fact that she did not qualify for the proper license.

She claims it was an “illegal set up” and now she feels like she is in a David vs. Goliath battle with her franchisor.

[ADMIN note: This post was originally published December 13, 2012. We invited Lady Bug President Lisa Miller to respond to Ms. Alfaro's complaints when this post was first published. We didn't receive a response.

On 1/3/13, a law firm representing Lady Bug Pest Control demanded that we take down this post as they claim it contains "false and defamatory" statements (they wouldn't say which ones). See their letter here: LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise Warning

See our response here: LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Attacks UnhappyFranchisee.Com, Fails

We've added language to this post make it clear that Ms. Alfaro's claims are her own and not that of UnhappyFranchisee.com's. We've added language to make it painfully clear that OUR statements are just our opinions and are neither fact nor the result of divine revelation :)

We once again invited Ms. Miller to provide clarification, comment or rebuttal to our opinions or Ms. Alfaro's complaints]

Are you familiar with the Lady Bug Pest Control franchise? Please share your opinion below.

When we visited the Lady Bug Pest Control website, two things made our skin crawl (figuratively. This is not a statement of fact).

The first was the (in our opinion) crass, get-rich-quick feel of the franchise pitch.

[The pile of money "Franchises How Fortunes Are Made" graphic is from the Lady Bug Pest Control web page. The characterization of it as "crass" with a "get-rich-quick" feel is solely our subjective opinion]

The franchise page has a tacky (in our opinion) graphic with the words “Franchises How Fortunes are Made” superimposed over a pile of money.

The second warning sign was the (in our opinion) get-rich-quick approach of their area development structure and their (in our opinion) blatant “earnings claim”:

The minimum investment for an Area Representative is $100,000 for a territory for a population of 3,000,000, and another $100,000 available for working capital to grow your franchise system.

Within the Lady Bug System, an Area Representative Franchise Owner receives 50% of each franchise fee and 50% of the royalty income. As an example, which is for explanation purposes only, not a guarantee, the current franchise fee is $30,000 per unit and the royalty each unit owner pays up to 10% of their gross sales.

For each unit opened in the development territory, the Area Representative would receive $15,000 (50% of the $30,000 franchise fee). By selling 35 units in this territory, an Area Representative would receive 50% of these franchise fees, and then the Area Representative would also receive 50% of the royalties. Each unit generally starts off by paying a royalty of 10% of their gross sales which equals a 5% royalty to the Area Representative.

As franchisee’s increase their revenue, the Area Representative’s royalty stream can increase each year. Area Representative’s also operate their own unit, generating even more income annually. Within 5 -10 years, depending on the Area Representative’s own unit growth, and the success of their franchisees, the financial rewards could be very substantial.

So it struck us that (in our opinion) Lady Bug Pest Control may be looking for people who want to make a “fortune” in pest control by buying a territory for $100,000 then selling 35 franchises that will bring in $525,000 in franchise fees for them.

Unfortunately, (in our opinion) this kind of structure can be a disaster both for the Area Representatives, who are desperate to sell enough franchises to recoup their investments, and the franchisees, who feel they got the hard-sell and little-to-no support. We’re not saying this is the case specifically for Lady Bug Pest Control, just that we’ve seen it happen in the past. And it’s just our opinion, anyway, not a statement of fact.

Expressing her own personal opinion which is not necessarily shared by UnhappyFranchisee.Com, Lady Bug Pest Control franchisee Lisa Alfaro writes:

I am currently a franchise owner of Lady Bug Pest Control Specialists trying to get out of a bad franchise.

There are some very questionable business practices.

One is that the franchise was to provide insurance because I did not have the proper license.

I contacted the insurance company for Lady Bug and found out that if I had a claim they would not have covered me.

Research and get the proper kind of attorney. I got an attorney to review the contract and little did I know I should have had an attorney who knew pest control law. It was an illegal set up.

Right now I am David and Lady Bug is Goliath.

If you’re thinking of buying a Lady Bug franchise, maybe you’d be better off flying away home instead.

But that, of course, is just our opinion… not a statement of fact.

ALSO READ:

LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise Warning

LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Attacks UnhappyFranchisee.Com, Fails

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LADY BUG PEST CONTROL FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY AND LISA MILLER? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise, Service franchise

LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Attacks UnhappyFranchisee.Com, Fails

January 4, 2013

Lady Bug Pest Control is in the business of killing whatever creepy crawly thing its customers find offensive.

When a franchisee complaint against its company appeared on UnhappyFranchisee.Com, Lady Bug Pest Control assumed it could just blow the offending conversation – along with the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press – to kingdom come.

(See LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise Complaints )

Lady Bug Pest Control deployed its high-powered law firm, Gordon & Rees, to use fear and intimidation to have a chilling effect on UnhappyFranchisee.Com, a site that has the gall to allow free and open discussion of franchise companies.

Gordon & Rees attorney Sean Carroll sent a blistering letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com (Read it here: LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise Warning) threatening to sue us for presumptive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and punitive damages if we do not bend to their iron will by the end of the day today.

All we can say is: Thank God we live in America, a country that, despite it’s faults, upholds its citizens’ right to free speech and right to a free and independent press.

The United States affords bloggers and commenters unequaled protection from bullies who think that their ability to pay an attorney’s retainer gives them the right to scare and intimidate American citizens from sharing their opinions and beliefs.

Here is our response to Lady Bug President Lisa Miller and her hired gun, attorney Sean Carroll:

SEAN M. CARROLL

Gordon Rees, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

111 W. MONROE STREET, SUITE 1600

PHOENIX, AZ 85003

Sent via email to: SCARROLL@GORDONREES.COM, CC LadyBug@LadyBugCorp.com

1/4/13

Mr. Carroll:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 28, 2012 (“Re: Lady Bug Pest Control”) that was transmitted via email January 3, 2013.

In your letter, you stated “On December 13, 2012, we were advised of a posting made by Ms. Lisa Alfaro regarding Lady Bug’s business on your website, Unhappyfranchisee.com. The postings are patently false and defamatory, including, without limitation, those that imply her business model is illegal and that her employees are not covered by insurance. Many of the defamatory comments are made from the poster, Lisa Alfaro. However, the editorial comments made by Unhappyfranchisee.com are equally false and defamatory, and give rise to liability on the part of Unhappyfranchisee.com.”

You further stated “If the posting regarding Lady Bug is not removed from your site by close of business, January 4, 2013, we will pursue legal action against Unhappyfranchisee.com and Lisa Alfaro to recoup these presumptive damages, in addition to all other damages sustained as a result of the defamatory postings. We will also seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this matter, as well as punitive damages.”

Upon receipt of your email, we immediately responded with a request that you clarify which of our statements, in particular, you believe are “false and defamatory,” so that we could look into your request. We did not receive a response from you.

After looking into this matter, we believe:

· UnhappyFranchisee.Com is not liable for comments made by Ms. Alfaro, as made clear by Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230).

· Since our statements are clearly labeled as opinion, not fact, they do not meet the legal definition of “defamation.”

· In light of the obvious absence of legal liability on our part, further legal threats or litigation by you and/or your client will clearly be attempts to bully, intimidate and coerce us into abandoning our rights protected by the 1^st Amendment, which protects both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, as well as Anti-SLAPP legislation in California, Arizona and other states.

· It would be in your client’s best interest for her to take us up on our offer to publish a corporate clarification and/or rebuttal to our post, as we offered when it first appeared, rather than waging an inflammatory public campaign to suppress the expression of opinions regarding the Lady Bug Pest Control franchise opportunity.

UnhappyFranchisee.Com is not liable for the comments of others

We have been active business bloggers and web publishers on controversial franchise topics for the past 6 years. As such, we are no strangers to the laws pertaining to libel and freedom of speech on the Internet and, specifically, the legal protections afforded bloggers and web publishers. In order to save you further time, expense and potential embarrassment, let me introduce you to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230).

In order for us to be liable for defamation, we would have to be the publisher or speaker of the offending information. Section 230 states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to “traditional” Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities – including bloggers and blog publishers – as “interactive computer service providers.”

UnhappyFranchisee.Com, as an “interactive computer service provider,” is not legally liable for the comments made by Ms. Alfaro. We did not state that Mrs. Alfaro’s complaints about the Lady Bug Pest Control franchise are valid or true, just that she made them. In fact, we immediately offered Lady Bug President Lisa Miller the opportunity to address, rebut or refute these claims on our site, which she has, so far, declined to do.

Opinions, stated as opinions, are not legally defamatory

Mr. Carroll, I am sure you are aware that defamation is defined as “a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation, and published ‘with fault,’ meaning as a result of negligence or malice.” [eff.org] Opinions, stated clearly as opinions, do not meet the legal definition of defamation. Out of respect for you and your client, we have added a disclaimer to the post making it doubly clear that our statements are clearly our opinions.

Additionally, we have no malice for your client, and immediately notified her of the complaint made against her company so that she could join the conversation and provide a rebuttal. In fact, our stated opinions were meant to help Lady Bug Pest Control by pointing out that the (in our opinion) cheesy reference to making a “fortune,” the garish “pile of money” graphics and the questionable earnings claim on her website may be attracting the wrong type of franchisee and/or setting the wrong expectation.

We offered our opinions in the form of constructive criticism, with no malicious intent.

Further threats against us will also backfire

We understand that your job is to represent the best interest of your client, so we don’t fault you for a single attempt to scare us into taking down a negative post. It was worth a try… and it failed. But it would not be in your client’s best interest to proceed with this same strategy moving forward.

In addition to the 1^st Amendment, we are protected by anti-SLAPP legislation in your home state of CA, in Lady Bug’s home state of Arizona, and our home state.

According to Wikipedia: “A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

“The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.”

Would it really be in Lady Bug Pest Control’s best interest to turn a single complaint from a disgruntled franchisee into a fiery public debate as to whether Lady Bug and Lisa Miller are using fear and intimidation to suppress free speech?

Let’s turn lemons into lemonade… together!

Mr. Carroll, please share this good news/bad news message with your client, Ms. Miller.

It’s 2013, the age of social media. The bad news is that if someone talks smack about you online, you can’t just have your big brother go beat them up (even a big brother who bills at $400 or so an hour).

The good news is, you can join the conversation and defend yourself with a professional message and, hopefully, the facts. Heck, you can even turn that negative posting into a positive opportunity to build your company and your brand!

Rather than lawyering up and trying to scare the bejeebers out of us, we invite Ms. Miller to provide us with a glowing written account of her organization, her mission, her franchisee support programs, and all of the non-financial rewards that come with eradicating creepy crawly nasty things as a Lady Bug Pest Control franchise owner. We will post it with the same prominence as the original complaint.

Once it’s posted, Ms. Miller can invite all the happy Lady Bug Pest Control franchise owners, employees, and customers to post positive comments about what they love about LBPC, and how much they disagree with Ms. Alfaro’s criticism.

Best yet, we’ll post Ms. Miller’s statement and host the happy comments for FREE… no hourly rate, no retainer, nothing!

Yes, it’s 2013, a new year! The sun is shining! The Mayans were wrong, once again!

Together, we can help Ms. Miller turn lemons into lemonade and turn that frown upside down!

All she’s got to do is realize that since she can’t crush the conversation, she might as well join it.

Sincerely,

ADMIN

UnhappyFranchisee.Com

God bless America!

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

tags: Lady Bug Pest Control, Lady Bug Pest Control franchise, Lady Bug Pest Control complaints, Lady Bug Pest Control franchise complaints, pest control franchise, Lisa Miller, Gordon Rees, Sean Carroll, Attorney Sean M. Carroll, franchise complaints, Takedown response, Section 230 protection

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, LADY BUG PEST CONTROL Franchise, Service franchise

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Strom Spins Franchisee Defection

January 2, 2013

A group of 7 USA Mobile Drug Testing (USAMDT) franchisees demanded immediate termination of their franchise agreements and $635,000 in combined damages.

The demand came in the form of a letter dated December 28, 2012, emailed from the group’s attorney, Mario Herman.

Mr. Herman stated that his clients were leaving, due to fraud on the part of the franchisor and CEO Joe Strom, and would be fully debranded from USAMDT by January 1, 2013.

January 2, 2013, USA Mobile Drug Testing CEO Joe Strom reportedly told his remaining franchisees that HE initiated termination of the renegade franchisees.

Furthermore, Joe Strom reportedly claimed that terminations only occur AFTER franchisees receive formal notice and warning – a claim the renegade franchisees deny.

One of the defecting franchisees told UnhappyFranchisee.Com: “I never received any threat of termination by Strom or USAMDT. We alone initiated our departure.”

Truth seems an elusive concept for Strom, USAMDT

UnhappyFranchisee.Com has repeatedly urged USAMDT CEO Joe Strom to try being honest about the state of his franchise system, if only as a change of pace.

Mr. Strom has not provided any support for his contention that his franchise system grew from 77 franchises in 2011 to 93 in 2012 – a contention at odds with his own website and Franchise Disclosure Document.

In Joe Strom’s alleged email to his franchisees dated January 2, 2013, he stated:

HQ had to make an unfortunate decision to terminate a few franchises (listed below). To be crystal clear, HQ never wants to terminate anyone’s business. We tried several measures to avoid this action, but we were unable to get the cooperation needed from each of the franchisees terminated. Our job is to protect your franchised business & the USAMDT brand. Some of the actions and/or non-actions of the terminated franchisees threatened the greater good of all your businesses and the USAMDT brand. We just cannot and will not stand for that.

You should know that if your business was ever at risk for being terminated, you would receive several forms of communication to attempt to avoid that action. Nobody would ever be blindsided with their business being terminated.

USAMDT defector franchisees claim that Mr. Strom is not being truthful, as he did not initiate termination, as he states, and they never received “several forms of communication” to try to avert termination.

Mr. Strom’s email to his remaining franchisees also states:

We are taking legal action to insure that these former franchisees do not entrench on any of your territories or your business both in your territory and the surrounding territories. We will stand by our non-compete and that was clearly communicated when we terminated our agreement with them.

The defecting franchisees claim that this is also an untrue statement, as they have not received any notice of termination of the franchise agreement from Mr. Strom (as of January 2, 2013).

(Mr. Strom, may we humbly suggest that you meant to say “We are taking legal action to insure that these former franchisees do not encroach…” rather than entrench on the surviving franchisees’ territories…?)

Mr. Strom ends his email on a motivational, uplifting note:

I really appreciate everyone’s input and I am excited to use this momentum to take USAMDT to the next level.

It’s unclear what momentum he’s referring to, as the only momentum USAMDT seems to be experiencing is downward. Now that the rebel franchises have been purged from the website, there are just 36 franchise locations listed.

If the rebel franchisees are correct in their contention that Mr. Strom is starting 2013 by lying to his remaining franchisees, that downward trajectory is unlikely to reverse anytime soon.

COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS Franchise Complaints

January 2, 2013

COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS Franchise complaints include exploitive practices toward young franchisees, inadequate training, exorbitant and hidden fees, unkept promises, cult-like corporate culture, underpayment of workers, and “thuggish management.”

The UnhappyFranchisee.Com post COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS: Great Opportunity or Franchise Scam? generated dozens of comments, many from former franchisees who said College Pro Painters left them heavily in debt.

One called his decision to join College Pro Painters “the worst decision of my life.”

Have you had an experience – good or bad – with College Pro Painters? Please share a comment below.

“Alfred Griffin” wrote:

…in ’89 everything changed,… Greg Clark the visionary founder sold out for peanuts and ownership moved to a public corp, heavily in debt and full of thuggish management. It was at this moment that the vision for the company changed into a conveyor belt of naive student types paying ever more unreasonable rates of royalty and failing in larger and larger numbers. Territories were carved up, fees for every item under the sun were introduced and smoke and mirror ways of convincing a 19 year old kid that he actually “made 10,000 last summer” were rolled out (gee, how come i have nothing in the bank and owe you guys $4000?)

“Pissed” wrote:

College Pro Painters is an awful company. They nearly forced me to drop out of college. Think about this. You get off for summer break, work your butt off all summer long, and I actually lose money that summer as a manager. Then I had to go back to school broke, and continue studying. It was an awful experience, and it still pisses me off that CPP took advantage of me. I know other people that ended up dropping out of school as a direct result of CPP. The only thing I learned was not to trust anyone from this company…

“Brandon” wrote:

I worked from May until September and ran a $50,000 business and actually barely broke even. In fact, I probably lost money in the end. How would you feel if you booked and produced $50,000 and never saw a penny go into your bank account? Instead, I paid College Pro $35,000, my painters $7,000, and my paint cost me $8000. They only reason my employee cost was only $7,000 is because I painted all summer with them for free! I never saw my friends, had my phone ringing non stop because customers were unhappy, and college pro always got their money from me at the end of every week…

To this day, I do everything in my power to talk to and meet with people who have an interest in working for this company. Take this as a lifesaving warning. DO NOT EVER AFFILIATE YOUSELF WITH COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS!!!!!!!

“SCAM!” wrote:

PLEASE READ

I was a FM [Franchise Manager] in 2012 and it was awful. I went in as a FRESHMEN in college and those fat cats at the big office convinced me that I was better than everyone else and I should work for them.

So I did. And it was THE biggest mistake of my life.

First of all, I was always struggling with money to make ends meet. I was from out of state with no place to live and no transportation. I had to buy my own car and rent out an apartment. Every month paying rent was a challenge because CPP [College Pro Painters] never taught me how to deal with money AT ALL. Even though that is at the core of any business, the only part that was emphasized was the part where THEY make money off of MY hard work.

And let me tell you, it was a lot of hard work.

I went through all the weird cultish training and parties where all they do is reinforce how much better I am than non-FMs and no time was spent explaining anything of real value to any of us.

CPP LIED TO ME. They let me hire high school kids even though they knew I didn’t have the permit to do so. I’m hit with $500 fine and 3 counts against my record from L&I [Labor & Industry] so thanks College Pro, ya did good to me on that one.

CPP CALLED ME A LIAR. My GM was really nice at first but I noticed that he was a real slave driver. There were so many sketchy things going on but I was 18 how was I supposed to know, I was counting on CPP to teach me what I should and shouldn’t do (that’s how they marketed it to me! more lies!).

CPP STOLE MY MONEY. I was $7k in debt by the end of the summer even though I produced good work, all because of the bullshit “royalty” fees. AND CPP failed to mention that I had an additional overhead fee with Sherwin Williams for supplies that came to about $1k which I was expected to pay even though I stopped making money in SEPTEMBER. They told me at the end of December.

All in all, CPP screws over all of its workers. It’s a typical top-down structure where the more the little guy loses out, the more the fat cat executives make out of it.

ARE YOU A COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS FRANCHISE OWNER OR PARENT OF A CPP FRANCHISEE?
ARE YOU A COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS CUSTOMER?
PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: College Pro Painters, College Pro Painters franchise, College Pro Painters complaints, College Pro Painters scam, College Pro Painters franchise complaints, College Pro Painters franchise scam, painting franchise, college painting franchise, franchise complaints, franchise scams

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS, Service franchise

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchisees Rebel, Cry Fraud

December 31, 2012

USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise owners claim they have been defrauded by CEO Joe Strom and USA Mobile Drug Testing, LLC.

Through their attorney, Mario Herman, a group of 7 USA Mobile Drug Testing (USAMDT) franchisees have demanded immediate termination of their franchise agreements and $635,000 in combined damages.

Mr. Herman states that his clients will be fully debranded from USAMDT by January 1, 2013.

UnhappyFranchisee.Com has reported many of the claims enumerated in attorney Herman’s letter (see below) in these prior posts:

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Complaints

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Questions for CEO Joe Strom

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Complaints: CEO Joe Strom Responds

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Warning

When given a chance to respond to the serious allegations raised in these posts (namely the misleading earnings claim in the FDD, and the inconsistent and suspicious reporting of franchise locations), CEO Strom evaded all but one of the questions posed to him.

Franchisee Attorney Mario Herman’s Letter to CEO Joe Strom

UnhappyFranchisee.Com obtained (from an anonymous source) a copy of this letter sent by franchisee attorney Mario Herman to USAMDT CEO Joe Strom on December 28, 2012.

LAW OFFICE OF MARIO L. HERMAN

5335 Wisconsin Avenue N.W.

Suite 440

Washington, D.C. 20015

December 28, 2012

VIA EMAIL TO jstrom@usamdt.com

Joe Strom, CEO

USA Mobile Drug Testing, LLC

15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 220

Tampa, FL 33647
Re: Notice of Termination
Dear Mr. Strom:

I have been retained by the below-referenced franchisees of USA Mobile Drug Testing, LLC (“USA Mobile”) regarding numerous transgressions committed by USA Mobile in violation of Florida law, including Florida’s “Baby FTC” Act.

The franchisees are Breillat, Barga, Hamil/Montelibano, Kesler, Parker, Saracovan, and Greenberg. The total amount of the combined damages exceed $635,000.00. Demand is hereby made for that amount.

The transgressions include, but are not limited to:

Illegal earnings claims offered via the Internet stating: “Net Annual Earnings of $145,745.”

Entrepreneur.com states 77 franchises at the end of 2011, the USA Mobile Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”) states 40.

Entrepreneur.com states 93 franchises at the end of 2012, USA Mobile website indicates 51 franchises. 8 of those redirect to the corporate 855 phone number because they have been shut down; 43 are operational franchises.

Misrepresentations contained in Item 19 of the FDD in terms of the revenue generated by the putative Connecticut “franchisee.” The Financial Performance Representation in the FDD is not based on a USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise, but is actually A&B Employer Solutions, Inc. (“A&B”), which operates its drug testing business as an add-on to a previously existing business.

The FDD at item 19 states: “We do not know the extent to which this operator provides products or services outside of his territory, or the portion of its revenues that are derived from outside of the territory.” The $329,225.40 revenue number most likely includes sales to existing A&B Employer Solutions clients and/or drug testing clients throughout the nation. New USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise owners would have neither an existing client base nor the ability to market outside their local area. Therefore, the $329,225.40 is highly misleading. The FDD further states: “We have not audited or verified the reports, nor has the operator confirmed that its report is prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles.”

Furthermore, A&B has paid no royalties, ad fund contributions, or other required expenses that a new franchisee would have to incur. A&B did not have to pay the Roll-Out Advertising of $10,500.00 for its first three months (now mandatory at $19,500.00). This fact should have been properly disclosed, and its purposeful omission is deceptive and unfair.

A&B did not have to pay a $49,900.00 franchise fee that a new franchisee would have to pay.

A&B did not have to pay 9% royalties on its gross sales, which would amount to $29,630.00.

USA Mobile knowingly allowed its external sales staff, Rhino 7, to falsely represent itself as being internal to USA Mobile, and knowingly allowed said external staff members to represent themselves as franchisees or soon-to-be franchisees.

USA Mobile deliberately failed to disclose any information about its corporate-owned location in Tampa, Florida. This includes information about earnings.

USA Mobile made representations to franchisees and potential franchisees as having national and regional accounts that would benefit franchisees. No such accounts existed at the time.

USA Mobile failed and continues to fail to disclose information about failed or closed franchisees.

The Financial Performance Representation (“FPR”) provided by USA Mobile substantially overstates revenue and understates expenses a new franchisee realistically would expect. The FPR provided in the FDD should be based on what a majority of the USA Mobile franchisees are achieving within the network. Based on the fraud and the deceptive and unfair trade practices detailed above, my Clients hereby terminate their respective Franchise Agreements effective immediately. All proprietary information is in the process of being returned to you, and all my clients will be fully de-identified by January 1, 2013.

Please ensure that the clients listed above are accurately listed as terminated franchises in the forthcoming 2013 FDD, and have your attorney contact me at the number or email indicated above. Finally, please refrain from any future communications with any of my aforementioned clients.
Sincerely,
Mario L. Herman

Attorney for USA Mobile

Drug Testing Franchisees

Despite Mr. Strom’s insistence that there are 93 USA Mobile Drug Testing franchises, the USAMDT website indicates that there may be as few as 43.

With the defection of these 7, there may now be as few as 36.

We have contacted the corporate office of USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise about these concerns, and invite their clarification, correction or rebuttal.

ARE YOU A USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING FRANCHISE OWNER, EXEVUTIVE, EMPLOYEE OR CLIENT? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

Tags: USA Mobile Drug Testing, USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise, USA Mobile Drug Testing complaints, USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise complaints, USA Mobile Drug Testing failure rate, drug testing franchise, mobile drug testing, Joseph Strom, Joe Strom, Mario Herman, franchisee rebellion

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, Service franchise, USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Warning

December 21, 2012

USA Mobile Drug Testing prospective franchise owners should, in the opinion of UnhappyFranchisee.Com, proceed with extreme care, do extra due diligence, and speak to as many current and former franchisees as possible before investing in this franchise.

Read: USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Complaints

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Questions for CEO Joe Strom

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise Complaints: CEO Joe Strom Responds

USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING franchise tests positive for Hype

USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise marketing claims that the USAMDT is “less risky than starting your own business.”

“Just get in your vehicle and make money,” says the USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise website.

The USAMDT states that its location in CT had annual sales of $333,000, with an impressive income of $155, 000 after expenses.

USA Mobile Drug Testing CEO Joe Strom claims that USAMDT has grown from 11 franchises in 2010 to 77 franchises in 2011 to an impressive 93 franchises in 2012.

However, the franchisees who contacted us tell another story entirely.

The franchisor’s responses to our questions are evasive and seem fishy.

And, bottom line, the numbers just don’t add up.

How many franchises does USA Mobile Drug Testing have? Simple question, right?

We can’t seem to get a straight answer as to how many franchises USAMDT has up and operating.

When we wrote our first post on USAMDT, we reacted to the company’s listing on Entrepreneur.Com, which indicated that the number of USAMDT franchises had dropped from 77 in 2011 to 52 in 2012 – a decline of 25 franchises.

CEO Joe Strom then told us that our data was incorrect, and directed us back to the same page on Entrepreneur.Com which suddenly states that USAMDT has 93 franchises – a gain of 16 franchises over 2011.

So we went to the USAMDT website and manually added up the locations listed. There are 51 locations listed on the USA Mobile Drug Testing website.

Of those 51 locations, 8 locations list the corporate phone number (855-USA-TEST), not a local number, indicating that there may be as few as 43 franchises.

Confidential sources indicate that number may be dropping soon, as a numerous franchisees are planning to either close or leave the system in the coming months.

Additionally, USAMDT’s own Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) seems to contradict Joe Strom’s assertion that there were 77 franchises at the end of 2011.

The FDD states there were 40 USAMDT franchises at the end of 2011, not 77.

We have once again asked CEO Joe Strom for some corroboration that there are 93 USAMDT franchises, and that the system grew by 16 rather than declined by 25 franchises.

USAMDT has one of the most questionable Financial Performance Representations we’ve ever seen.

The 2012 USAMDT Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) contains what we believe is one the most misleading earnings claims (Financial Performance Representations) that we’ve ever seen.

The Representation states it is for a “USA Mobile Drug Testing business… located in New Haven, Connecticut, and it is operated by A & B Employer Solutions, Inc. (“A&B”).”

It claims A & B Employer Solutions, Inc. had yearly sales of $329,225.40 and “income” after expenses of $155,039.10.

However, the disclaimers and explanations in the “fine print” of the 200+ pages of legal documents show that the use of this business as a representation of the performance of a USAMDT franchise is beyond absurd:

- A & B Employer Solutions, Inc. was an established business selling drug testing services to an existing customer base – an advantage new franchises would not have.

- The FDD state: “the territory that [A & B Employer Solutions, Inc.] actually service has been limited to the New Haven, Connecticut market, and includes approximately 10,000 businesses. This is approximately the same size as a typical or average territory size of 10,000” The FDD then contradicts itself, saying “This operator may provide products and services in areas outside of its territory. We do not know the extent to which this operator provides products or services outside of his territory, or the portion of its revenues that are derived from outside of the territorv.”

- A & B Employer Solutions, Inc. was restricted to a local territory, but may have sold nationally? The $329,225.40 figure may have been derived from a business marketing nationally, not confined to a market like a franchisee would be? Seriously?

- The FDD states “We did not have a written franchise agreement with A&B until 2011. However, both A&B and we have treated A&B’s operations as a “franchise” (except that A & B did not pay royalty fees prior to signing a franchise agreement…).” It appears that A&B also did not pay a franchise fee, advertising fund or technology fund fee.

- The FDD states “Due to internal business and ownership issues unrelated to us or the System, at the end of 2011 this operator ceased operating using Marks and using all of the USA Mobile Drug Testing products, services…”

Why would A & B Employer Solutions, Inc. severe all ties with USA Mobile Drug Testing unless USAMDT trademarks and services gave them no significant benefit?

- The FDD states “We have not audited or verified the reports, nor has the operator confirmed that its report is prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles.”

So USAMDT has no idea whether this Financial Performance Representation contains accurate information or not, but it will provide it to prospective franchisees anyway?

Did Joe Strom exploit the Sandy disaster to discourage franchisee lawsuits?

Unnamed franchisees claim that USAMDT offered franchise owners affected by Superstorm Sandy a seemingly generous 3-months without royalty payments in order to help them weather the devastation in the Northeast.

Seemed like a kind and thoughtful gesture, they said.

However, CEO Strom required franchisees to sign a legal document in order to get the gracious offer. The legal agreement contained a waiver of rights that was completely unrelated to the Sandy situation or royalty forgiveness. One section of the waiver read:

Franchisee acknowledges that the waiving of three additional monthly Minimum Royalty Fees is of considerable value. For the value received Franchisor and Franchisee, for themselves and their successors, assigns, heirs and personal representative, for good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, release each other and their respected affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, employees and agents from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, claims, damages, expenses, debts, bills, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, judgments, or demands that either of them now has, may have ever had, or may have against the other based on any transaction, event, or circumstance whatsoever relating to the Franchise Agreement through the date of this agreement except for the terms and conditions specifically agreed to in this agreement and any claims for which Franchisor would have the right to indemnification or contribution under the terms of the Franchise Agreement arising out of the Franchisee’s operation of the franchise.

So, Joe Strom had such compassion for franchisees devastated by Hurricane Sandy that he was willing to give them 3 months worth of royalties… as long as they signed a legal agreement forbidding them from suing him for anything the company may have done – or not done – in the past.

Anyone considering becoming a USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise owner should consider this question: What is USAMDT so worried about that they would use a natural disaster like Sandy to sneak a waiver of rights by their storm-ravaged franchisees? And why is it so hard to get a straight answer to the simplest of questions, such as “How many franchises are still up and running?”

ARE YOU A USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING FRANCHISE OWNER, EXECUTIVE, EMPLOYEE OR CLIENT? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

Tags: USA Mobile Drug Testing, USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise, USA Mobile Drug Testing complaints, USA Mobile Drug Testing franchise complaints, USA Mobile Drug Testing failure rate, drug testing franchise, mobile drug testing, Joseph Strom, Joe Strom

Written by ADMIN · Filed Under ALL POSTS, Service franchise, USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING Franchise