Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-203 (2026)
Applicability of subchapter
This subchapter applies only to a franchise entered into, renewed, or transferred after March 4, 1977, the performance of which contemplates or requires the franchise to establish or maintain a place of business within the State of Arkansas. However, the provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to those business relations, actions, transactions, or franchises subject to the provisions of § 4-72-401 et seq. and § 4-72-501 et seq., or which are subject to the Federal Trade Commission regulations, “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures”, 16 C.F.R. 436.1 et seq.
History. Acts 1977, No. 355, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 70-809; Acts 1991, No. 760, § 2.
Case Notes
Illustrative Cases.
Where the manufacturer's representative did not take title and possession of any of the manufacturer's products, and although the representative had some authority to negotiate price, he did not have an unqualified authorization to transfer the product at the point and moment of the agreement to sell, the representative was a promoter or solicitor of sales rather than an actual seller of goods; therefore, he did not have a cause of action based on the Franchise Practices Act. Kent Jenkins Sales, Inc. v. Angelo Bros. Co., 804 F.2d 482 (8th Cir. 1986).
Where franchise agreements entered into Arkansas contemplated yogurt stores in Michigan only, this subchapter did not apply. JRT Inc. v. TCBY Sys., 52 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1995).
The Franchise Practices Act did not apply to an agreement between the parties whereby the plaintiff became an independent distributor for the defendant since no fixed geographical location for selling products or services was ever contemplated, much less required, by the parties' agreement. Mary Kay, Inc. v. Isbell, 338 Ark. 556, 999 S.W.2d 669 (1999), appeal dismissed, Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics, 338 Ark. 580, 999 S.W.2d 673 (Ark. 1999).
Restaurant owners's claim under the Arkansas Franchises Practices Act against restaurant chain was dismissed because the AFPA did not apply to franchises subject to the Federal Trade Commission's regulations and it was clear that the franchises at issues were subject to those regulations; the franchise agreements were contracts in or affecting commerce, granted the owners the right to use trade names, trademarks, and service marks in exchange for a fee, gave the restaurant chain significant control over the owners' operations, including the right to inspect the franchised restaurants, and the owners were obligated to report financial results to the chain. J.K.P. Foods, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 420 F. Supp. 2d 966 (E.D. Ark. 2006).
Cited: Bridgman v. Cornwell Quality Tools Co., 831 F.2d 174 (8th Cir. 1987); Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Frantz, 311 Ark. 136, 842 S.W.2d 37 (1992); Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp., 374 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2004).