In Spain, a dispute unfolds between McDonald’s and several former franchisees over conditions that have sparked courtroom action. A case involving a former concessionaire argues that the multinational firm is pursuing a substantial compensation claim, reportedly 1.2 million euros, while other lawsuits remain open. The legal narrative centers on a so-called secret contract and the terms governing what the franchise system should cover under its operational framework.
In March 2021, a Castellf3n court of inquiry ordered McDonaldbbs to pay 3.7 million euros to a franchise owner. The company appealed, and the Provincial Court later altered the ruling, reversing the payment. That Castellf3n-based businessman has since escalated his appeal to the Supreme Court. The court is being asked to recognize, as the trial court did, that McDonaldbbs has been charging certain franchisees for logistics costs for many years, costs that the franchisees contend should not be borne by them. This resource was examined by EL PERIf3DICO DE ESPA from the Prensa Ibe9rica group.
If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, observers familiar with these cases note, McDonaldbbs could face substantial payouts in Spain. Estimates circulating among participants and lawyers suggest that as many as twenty Spanish franchisees have filed similar lawsuits. Not all are pursuing a unified strategy, and some have already conceded losses by admission, ending their cases. McDonaldbbs did not respond to a request for information from this publication.
Two extra payments
Franchisees typically sign a franchise agreement and pay a significant upfront fee, roughly a 22.25% share of sales, aligned with the system branded as McDonaldbs. The basis for this system, according to the source materials, is the right to use trademarks and offer the restaurantbs products under the McDonaldbbs banner.
The core issue concerns two additional payments that franchisees face. The first is a 4% levy on sales directed to COOP, the association that coordinates brand advertising campaigns in Spain. COOP membership is a flashpoint: the initial rebel franchisee, Luis Cañizares, left to fund advertising independently, triggering retaliation from McDonaldbbs, which allegedly reduced the franchiseeb0s access to promotional materials.
The second payment involves distribution logistics costs, invoiced by Havi Logistics, the supplier responsible for food and beverages to restaurants. Havi, headquartered in Germany, is identified in the consolidated Spanish accounts as McDonaldbbsb0 largest customer by far, with a share of more than two-thirds of McDonaldbbsb0 European supply, while Martin-Brower handles the remaining portion.
In the Supreme Court appeal, the franchisee argues that the very relationship with Havi is a point of contention the Castellf3n court used to condemn McDonaldbbs in the first instance. The appellants contend that the connection between Havi and McDonaldbbs is inseparable and that the logistics costs should be considered part of the ongoing franchise fee rather than an extra charge. They assert that Havi is the sole authorized seller of products within the McDonaldbbs system and pays for access to this system, creating a double payment scenario that is not spelled out in the contract and therefore unjustified.
The first-instance court characterized McDonaldbbs as concealing its contractual relationship with Havi from franchise owners, describing Havi as a corporate entity closely linked to McDonaldbbs. It concluded that the company owed 3.7 million euros for logistics-related concepts. Observers familiar with the process say that if the Supreme Court recognises the same logic, McDonaldbbs could face a multi-hundred million euro liability for the total amount of logistics costs that should be refunded.
What does McDonaldbbs say?
The company has argued that the relationship with Havi does not affect the issue of logistics costs and that the franchisees have paid these charges for years. The court acknowledged that no direct contract exists between Havi and the franchise owners. It noted that merely because the contract is with McDonaldbbs does not automatically render the logistics costs part of the monthly sales fee. With the Supreme Court now assessing whether a hidden contract existed between Havi and McDonaldbbs, the question remains whether those logistics costs were already included as part of the system-access fee.