Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-208 (2026)

Franchisee's remedies

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any franchisee who is harmed by a violation or violations of § 4-72-207 shall be entitled to recover treble damages in a civil action and, where appropriate, obtain injunctive relief in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation.
Any franchisee who is harmed by a violation of any other section of this subchapter shall be entitled to recover actual damages in a civil action and, where appropriate, obtain injunctive relief in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation.
In addition to the other remedies provided for in this subchapter, the Attorney General shall have authority to file a petition in the circuit court of the county in which the State Capitol is located, seeking an injunction prohibiting any person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other entity from engaging in any of the practices prohibited by this subchapter. However, nothing shall prohibit the Securities Commissioner from taking appropriate action whenever a franchise constitutes a security under the Arkansas Securities Act, § 23-42-101 et seq.

History. Acts 1977, No. 355, §§ 10, 11; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 70-816, 70-817.

Cross References. Jurisdiction of circuit courts, Ark. Const. Amend. 80 §§ 6, 19.

Case Notes

In General.

Distributor failed to present sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of a material fact on the issue of fraud as, even if the Court accepted as true the distributor's allegation that an executive told another that the brewing company would not approve any prospective purchaser other than the one who bought the distributorship, this was not a false statement of act but, rather, a promise or prediction of future conduct. Southeastern Distrib. Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 366 Ark. 560, 237 S.W.3d 63 (2006).

Attorney's Fees.

In awarding attorney's fees to a franchisee for the franchiser's wrongful termination of the franchise agreement, the trial court erred by not applying the Chrisco factors in deciding what were reasonable attorney's fees. S. Beach Bev. Co. v. Harris Brands, Inc., 355 Ark. 347, 138 S.W.3d 102 (2003).

Cited: Kent Jenkins Sales, Inc. v. Angelo Bros. Co., 804 F.2d 482 (8th Cir. 1986); Arkcom Digital Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 289 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2002); Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp., 374 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2004).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1999–2012 · leading case: Bailey v. Rahe, 142 S.W.3d 634 (Ark. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bailey v. Rahe, 142 S.W.3d 634 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4× “3d 102 (2003), where fees were allowed under Ark.Code Ann. § 4-72-208 (Repl.2001) when a franchisee was injured by unlawful conduct in the context of the sale or transfer of franchises.”

Tiner v. Tiner, 422 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “3d 102 (2003) (involving the Franchise Act and Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-72-208’s provision that any franchisee who is harmed by violations of the Act shall be entitled to recover treble damages and, where appropriate, obtain injunctive relief in addition to reasonable…”

South Beach Beverage Co. v. Harris Brands, Inc., 138 S.W.3d 102 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2× “We need not address that particular point, because no evidence was presented to the jury separating out the Arkansas and Oklahoma damages, and by the jury-instruction stage, it was simply too late to do so. We affirm the circuit court on this point.”

Se. Distrib. Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 4-72-208. We affirm the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Miller on this claim.”

Arkcom Digit. Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross v. Xerox Corp., Defendant-Appellee/cross, 289 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2002). “See ArkCode Ann. § 4-72-208. In opposing Xerox’s motion to compel arbitration, Arkcom argued: (1) Arkansas law applies, even though the Agreement provides that Covered Disputes “shall be governed by the law of New York State;” (2) Arkcom is a franchisee entitled to AFPA…”

Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics, 999 S.W.2d 673 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-208 (b) (Repl. 1996).”

Arkcom Digit. Corp. v. Xerox Corp. (8th Cir. 2002). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-208 . In opposing Xerox’s motion to compel arbitration, Arkcom argued: (1) Arkansas law applies, even though the Agreement provides that Covered Disputes “shall be governed by the 1 The HONORABLE STEPHEN M.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-208(a) — 1 case

Se. Distrib. Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. 2006). “§ 4-72-208. We affirm the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Miller on this claim.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.