Legal proceedings The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of the probability of a loss and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. These accruals are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the effects of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and technical experts and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility (within the meaning of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 450) that losses could exceed amounts already accrued, if any, and the additional loss or range of loss is able to be estimated, the Company discloses the additional loss or range of loss. In some instances, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any potential loss or range of loss. The nature and progression of litigation can make it difficult to predict the impact a particular lawsuit will have on its business. There are many reasons that the Company cannot make these assessments, including, among others, one or more of the following: the early stages of a proceeding; damages sought that are unspecified, unsupportable, unexplained or uncertain; discovery not having been started or incomplete; the complexity of the facts that are in dispute; the difficulty of assessing novel claims; the parties not having engaged in any meaningful settlement discussions; the possibility that other parties may share in any ultimate liability; and/or the often slow pace of litigation. The Company currently is subject to litigation with a group of its franchise owners. In January 2014, six franchise owner groups claimed that the Company misrepresented its sales volumes, made false representations to them and charged excess advertising fees, among other things. The Company engaged in mediation with these franchise owners, which is required under the terms of their franchise agreements, in order to address and resolve their claims, but was unable to reach a settlement agreement. On April 4, 2014, a total of 12 franchise owner groups, including those franchise owners that previously made the allegations described above, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington, making essentially the same allegations for violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Based on motions filed by the Company in that lawsuit, the court ruled on July 9, 2014, that certain of the plaintiffs claims under the anti-fraud and nondisclosure provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act should be dismissed and that certain other claims in the case would need to be more specifically alleged. The court also ruled that the six franchise owner groups who had not mediated with the Company prior to filing the lawsuit must mediate with the Company in good faith, and that their claims shall be stayed until they have done so. On June 18, 2014, an additional 16 franchise owner groups, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs described above, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington making essentially the same allegations as made in the lawsuit described above and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. The court consolidated the two lawsuits into a single case and ordered that the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, none of whom had mediated with the Company prior to filing the lawsuit, must do so, and that their claims be stayed until they have completed mediating with the Company in good faith. In October 2014, the Company engaged in mediation with the 22 franchise owner groups who had not previously done so. As a result of that mediation and other efforts, the Company reached resolution with 13 of the franchise owner groups involved in the consolidated lawsuits, and their claims have either been dismissed or dismissal is pending. In February 2015, the remaining franchise owner groups in the consolidated lawsuits filed an amended complaint, removing some claims, amending some claims, adding claims and naming some of the Companys former and current franchise sales staff as additional individual defendants. In September 2016, the remaining 15 franchise owner groups in the consolidated lawsuits filed an amended complaint to add a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act based on substantially the same allegations as the prior claims, to re-plead claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act that had previously been dismissed. In June 2017, the parties moved for summary judgment. The Company moved for summary judgment against two of the remaining franchise owner groups, the board of directors members moved for summary judgment on all claims against them, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against all defendants on their Washington Consumer Protection Act and Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act claims. A hearing on the summary judgment motions was held on October 13, 2017. In July 2017, the Company engaged in mediation with the remaining 15 franchise owner groups in the consolidated lawsuits. As a result of that mediation and other efforts, the Company reached resolutions with six of the remaining franchise owner groups, and their claims have been dismissed. In April 2018, the Company reached resolution with four of the remaining franchise owner groups, conditioned upon dismissal of their claims. In June 2018, the Company reached resolution with an additional franchise owner group. On June 29, 2018, the Court granted the Companys motion to strike the remaining franchise owner groups jury demand. The Court denied the Companys motion for separate trials, because at the time of the hearing there were only two franchise owner groups remaining in the case, based on tentative settlements with two other groups. In July 2018, the Company entered into final settlements with two of the aforementioned franchise owner groups. In September 2018, the Company entered into a final settlement with an additional franchise owner group. There is one group remaining in the case, with a trial scheduled to start in the spring of 2019 in the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington. The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 7, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply with the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it sent SMS text messages to consumers. Mr. Lennartson asks that the court certify the putative class and that statutory damages under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each class member. On October 14, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted the Company a limited waiver from the TCPAs written consent requirements for certain text messages that it sent up through October 16, 2013 to individuals who, like Mr. Lennartson, provided written consent prior to October 16, 2013. On October 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal. On October 27, 2016, Mr. Lennartson filed a motion seeking to extend the time to respond to the summary judgment motion on the basis that he intends to appeal the FCCs waiver. On November 4, 2016, the Court granted Mr. Lennartsons motion to continue his response to the Companys summary judgment motion until he could complete his appeal of the FCCs waiver order. In addition, on January 9, 2017, Mr. Lennartson filed an amended complaint adding additional plaintiffs, some of whom provided consent after October 16, 2013, and who are therefore differently situated from Mr. Lennartson, as well as additional Washington state law claims. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved to certify their putative class, which the Company opposed, and on November 22, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs claims. The Court issued a stay of the case for 30 days while the parties pursued settlement negotiations. On April 23, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release and plaintiffs filed a Motion and Memorandum for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with the Court. The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on May 16, 2018, in its Preliminary Approval Order Approving Settlement, Certifying Settlement Class, Approving Notice Plan, and Setting Fairness Hearing. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on September 28, 2018, in its Amended Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement, which resulted in the settlement and release of all claims, subject to appeal. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to routine legal proceedings, claims and litigation in the ordinary course of its business. The Company may also engage in future litigation with franchise owners to enforce the terms of franchise agreements and compliance with brand standards as determined necessary to protect the Companys brand, the consistency of products and the customer experience. Lawsuits require significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain. The Company does not, however, currently expect that the costs to resolve these routine matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.