Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 80C.09 (2026)

Advertising

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Filed copy required.

No person shall publish or cause to be published in this state any advertisement offering a franchise subject to the registration requirements of sections 80C.01 to 80C.22 unless a true copy of the advertisement has been filed in the office of the commissioner at least five business days prior to the first publication thereof, or at such later time as the commissioner by rule or order may allow, unless such advertisement has been exempted by rule of the commissioner.

Subd. 2.False, misleading, or deficient ads; commissioner notification.

No person shall publish or cause to be published in this state any advertisement concerning any franchise after the commissioner has found that the advertisement contains any statement that is false or misleading or omits to make any statement necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and has so notified the person by written order. The order may be issued without prior notice or hearing. At any time after the issuance of the order, the person desiring to use the advertisement may in writing request a hearing on the order. Upon the receipt of such a written request, the matter shall be set for hearing to commence within 15 days after such receipt unless the person making the request consents to a later date. After the hearing, which shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 14, the commissioner shall, by written order, either affirm, modify, or vacate the order.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1978–1978 · leading case: Martin Investors, Inc. v. Vander Bie, 269 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1978).
Martin Investors, Inc. v. Vander Bie, 269 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1978). “See, §§ 80C.09 and 80C.19. In response to Faye’s inquiries after he saw the same advertisement, although in a nationally circulated newspaper, a CCC agent discussed the proposed consultant arrangement in a long-distance telephone call with Faye, who was within Minnesota.”
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.