IFA Polling Puts American Franchise Act Debate Back In Front Of Franchise Operators

The International Franchise Association has put fresh polling behind its push for the American Franchise Act, releasing national and state-level results that it says show broad public support for franchised businesses and stable legal protections for franchise owners. The June 25 release said Morning Consult conducted the polling and that the findings covered both national respondents and state samples in Colorado, Maryland, Michigan and Virginia.

The headline numbers are designed for a policy fight. IFA said 75 percent of respondents want government to establish stable legal protections for franchise owners, 73 percent support franchising as a way for brands to grow, and 72 percent would rather shop at brands that expand through franchising than corporate chains. In the state polling, IFA said 62 percent to 69 percent of adults viewed franchise businesses as positive contributors to local economic health, roughly three in four preferred shopping at franchises over corporate-owned chains, and support for the American Franchise Act ran about six to one over opposition after respondents learned about the proposal.

For franchise operators, the polling is important because the American Franchise Act is not just a branding exercise. The bill is aimed at codifying a joint-employer standard for franchising, a long-running legal question that affects how franchisors support franchisees without taking on unintended employer liability. Franchisors want room to protect brand standards, training, product quality, technology systems and customer experience. Franchisees want the independence of local ownership to remain clear. Labor advocates and regulators, meanwhile, have argued in different contexts that brand control can sometimes look like employment control.

IFA president and chief executive Matt Haller linked the polling directly to that debate, saying franchises are part of everyday American life and should be protected as local businesses. The association also said the American Franchise Act had reached 128 bipartisan cosponsors in the U.S. House, with companion legislation introduced in the Senate. That does not guarantee passage, but it shows the group is trying to move the issue from industry lobbying into a broader small-business policy frame.

The polling arrives at a useful moment for franchise systems because state and federal employment rules remain a source of planning risk. Joint-employer uncertainty can affect franchise training, field support, operating manuals, inspection standards, technology mandates and local marketing. If a franchisor becomes too cautious, franchisees may receive weaker support. If a franchisor is too directive, legal risk can increase. A clearer standard could make it easier for systems to maintain consistency without blurring the legal line between brand owner and local employer.

Franchisees should still read the campaign carefully. A public-opinion poll is not the same as statutory protection, and legislation can change as it moves through Congress. Operators also have issues beyond joint employment, including financing, labor costs, lease pressure, local regulation and exit rights. The strongest policy argument for the franchise sector will be one that addresses those daily operating realities, not just the abstract popularity of franchising.

The broader takeaway is that franchise law and franchise public relations are increasingly connected. IFA is using polling, local-business storytelling and legislative language to argue that the model deserves its own legal clarity. Whether lawmakers act on that case will shape how confidently franchisors and franchisees build systems in the next expansion cycle.

"Franchise law and franchise public relations are increasingly connected."