The Donut Days Are Over: DonutNV Franchise Update, Summer 2026 (UPDATED)

7 thoughts on “The Donut Days Are Over: DonutNV Franchise Update, Summer 2026 (UPDATED)”

• The fact that you have an open lawsuit with them and are writing these almost daily is odd. There are many of us who own trucks and put in the hard work to hire employees and expand our businesses. This isn’t a get rich quick scheme and many hours and hard work go into running a successful business no matter what it is. This business is a large investment and everyone should have done, and was given ample opportunities to do research before putting pen to paper. The fact you’re even trying to make comments about the law firm owner and his campaign is pathetic. Attorneys have to make money too so you might as well attack every attorney who defends any criminal.
  You’re trying to ruin others livelihoods while claiming to protect some. Maybe start looking into some of these franchisees you’re defending so hard while bashing others, you’ll find out not everyone you defend is so perfect. I’m sure neither are you. At the end of the day, no job is perfect and if anyone spent the money to purchase a truck and they chose not to do their research that is a silly move on their part. The rest of us will continue building.

• Lol:

  Thanks for engaging in open and respectful dialogue.

  “The fact that you have an open lawsuit with them and are writing these almost daily* is odd.”
  Not really.
  Before they filed suit, I made it clear to their attorney (at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg) that bogus attacks on my freedom of speech and freedom of the press would result in intensified focus and publicity, not silence.
  In 20 years, I’ve never backed down from a legal threat and I’ve never lost.
  What’s truly odd is that they not only proceeded to file, but that they didn’t drop it even after I called their bluff.  They turned four blog posts into 50+, ten videos, songs and a hundred+ graphics.
  What’s truly odd is that Keith Gross’ law firm fired off lawsuits against Veterans and distraught parents while simultaneously running for Congress as a concerned Veteran and defender of small business owners.  He put $5M of his own money into the campaign.  Why represent a client that sues and gags Veterans? 
  [To be clear, Keith Gross has stated that he doesn’t personally represent DonutNV.  Travis Tarpeh, of Gross Law Group, represents DonutNV]

  “…you might as well attack every attorney who defends any criminal.”
  What I love about America is that you have the right to express your opinion, and I have the right to express mine.
  Those observing can weigh both sides of the argument and make up their own minds.
  Unfortunately, DonutNV franchisee Veterans who served our country and our right to speak freely are prohibited from sharing their experiences and opinions (except positive comments – kind of like North Korea).
  You said that people considering the DonutNV franchise should do their research.That research should include speaking to former franchisees – which they aren’t able to do.

  “Attorneys have to make money too…”
  Don’t worry about Travis Tarpeh.
  This publicity will probably make him highly popular with franchisors… and politicians.
  “everyone should have done, and was given ample opportunities to do research”
  The FTC “Consumers Guide to Buying a Franchise” states that its critical to speak to current and former franchisees before investing.The FTC Franchise Rule requires franchise sellers to provide their current and recent franchisees’ contact information.
  In my opinion, DonutNV Franchising Inc. and its three law firms are actively trying to block and suppress prospective franchisees from accessing the most critical information they need to make an informed decision:  the experiences and honest opinions of current and former franchisees.
  That, in my opinion, smacks of racketeering.

  “…not everyone you defend is so perfect. I’m sure neither are you.”
  You are correct.  I’m not perfect. 
  But I’m not a liar.
  I’m not an extortionist.
  DonutNV and their attorneys have publicly accused me of both.
  Only one side is afraid to speak freely & openly.
  Only one of us has to place pay-for-play press releases on fake websites to feign growth claims no one believes.
  Only one of us hides behind a wall of lawyers, unable to issue a single response on their own like actual CEOs and real business leaders do.

  * As for me writing about this almost daily… don’t worry.
  I’m determined to up my game… lol

  Again, all who are discussed here, especially those at Gross Law Group of Panama City Beach, FL, have an open invitation to provide their points of view, corrections, and rebuttals.
  Providing such in the form of legal threats or aggression is not advised.

• Funny how you hide behind the fake LOL name. If you’re so successful …post ur latest profit and loss statement. Show how your business is the “model” of what DonutNV claims.

  I mean if only 27 owners are in arbitration, that must mean that are sloppy operators, horrible people, and just bad business people. I mean if all the former owners have left on such great terms, why all the NDAs where they cant speak about hard it was to lose their life savings, dream home or retirement all due to their incompetence.

  I mean surely they are at least 50 owners out of a 100 currently that can say they are making a great living running this “semi absentee” model. Until you can produce actual verifiable records. I’d keep my opinion of the “disgruntled owners” to yourself and keep drinking the Kool Aid they gave you when you signed up

• unhappyzeePosT author. Thank you so much for helping get the word out about issues surrounding unethical approaches by franchisors, specifically DonutNV.

  I don’t call it a lack of research when 25-40% of the franchisees are taking/taken action for unethical actions by DonutNV. I am unaware of any franchisee in this system who has ever hit their advertised profit numbers per trailer. The validation calls they had us make to validate our research, in hindsight, were very scripted. They would not allow any negative information to be delivered. Active franchisees who were selected to field validation calls were coached before potential franchisees would call. If negative information was even alluded to they were not allowed to be on any other validations calls.

  Many of us were also sold on a semi-absentee model (10-15 hrs/wk). The very thought of LOL suggesting it takes years(maybe that was one of their other posts, we all know who Lol is) to get there validates the unethical misrepresentation that they sold us.

• Lol, your comment actually highlights the issue.

  It’s interesting that whenever franchisees raise concerns, the conversation immediately shifts to “you should have worked harder” or “you should have done more research.”

  Many of us did the research. Many of us worked extremely hard. Many invested life savings, retirement funds, borrowed money, attended every training, followed the system, and still experienced serious issues. The existence of a few successful operators does not erase the experiences of those who weren’t.

  No one is trying to ruin anyone’s livelihood. If a business model is solid, it should be able to withstand scrutiny and honest discussion. Transparency is not the enemy of a good franchise system.

  As for the lawsuit, the courts will ultimately determine the legal issues. In the meantime, people are entitled to discuss their own experiences and publicly available information. That’s not “pathetic”—it’s part of helping prospective franchisees make informed decisions before investing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  You are free to share your positive experience. Others are equally free to share their negative one. Future franchisees deserve to hear both sides.

• This will be my last response as continuing to run a successful business is a bigger priority.

  I find it humorous you comment on my “lol” name yet no one chooses to use their real names.

  It’s convenient that NOW the NDA’S are an issue, but no one batted an eye and still signed the contract knowing about the NDA’S before.

  We worked the truck in training, we all saw what it took to run a truck and know what requirements an associate would need to fully run a truck.

  You don’t just hand an employee a key and tell them good luck! We have to train someone to do our job with confidence to run it semi absentee.

  That’s called being a business owner.

  Again, some people went into this without doing thorough research and saw this as a get rich quick scheme.

  Yes, bringing up someones political campaign in a negative light is pathetic and seems like people are trying to get the firm to drop representation.

  Well sorry but I gotta grab my kool aid and head to the bank!

  Or maybe I should start writing articles on all these perfect franchise owners.

  Oh and Sean thanks for quoting me on Facebook. LOL

• Lol:

  I have absolutely no issue with you – or others – commenting anonymously. Protecting the right of anonymous speech is an essential part of democracy. If you wish to continue the conversation or express your views directly, you can email me with a full promise of confidentiality.

  I understand the need to stay positive and be supportive of the franchisor while you’re actively trying to run your business. And no one is saying you can’t be successful (at least I’m not) as a full-time hands-on operator giving it all you’ve got, as you are doing. But you can do that and still see things logically and objectively. As one who has guided and launched literally hundreds of franchise programs, I assure you that careful selection and screening of franchisees and setting the right expectations is the franchisor’s greatest responsibility and critical for the success of the chain.

  I hear this all the time: The franchisees aren’t willing to put in the necessary effort; they want everything to come easy; they aren’t willing to follow the system, etc. etc.

  If that’s true, it’s on the franchisor for not qualifying their prospects, for selling to a bunch of lazy slackers, for not monitoring their operational compliance and for not putting them in default for not running the business as required. Going into default because the business drained financially qualified franchisees sounds like the franchisor’s failure, not the franchisees.