Smoke and Mirrors: Dickey’s Continues to Challenge the NYT, Legal Maneuvers
Dickey’s Barbecue Pit continues to challenge what it calls a “distorted media narrative and a coordinated legal assault” aimed at undermining its brand and legacy.
In a formal rebuttal to a recent New York Times article, the Dallas-based and world’s largest barbecue franchise company criticized the piece as “biased and misleading,” accusing it of ignoring data, omitting key voices, and amplifying the grievances of a small group of former franchisees represented by a law firm with a documented history of aggressive tactics.
Dickey’s is standing firm — defending its franchise model, spotlighting its many success stories, and exposing what it calls a calculated smear campaign orchestrated to destabilize one of America’s most enduring barbecue brands.
The NYT article in question spotlights six former disgruntled franchisees, who blame the company for their franchises’ failures. The article states an additional thirty former disgruntled franchisees were interviewed, but does not provide any verifiable details around this statement. Allegedly this small group formed on Facebook, and is now working with the Miami-based law firm Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A., which is filing three lawsuits on their behalf.
“The positive experience and success of the majority of our franchisees is ignored,” said Laura Rea Dickey, CEO of Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants Inc. “That’s not reporting, that’s misleading.”
In a follow-up letter to the editor, Dickey’s requested changes to the Times article, saying the piece “was regrettably one-sided, despite the comprehensive information provided,” and that “The article did not provide an objective perspective of Dickey’s Barbecue Pit, emphasizing the grievances of a select group of franchisees rather than a comprehensive analysis of the overall business environment.”
In the letter, the company said it had provided names and contact information for 90 current and former franchisees, as well as former corporate employees who were not contacted for the article. Additionally, Dickey’s said the piece failed to include relevant industry data and disregarded “counterexamples and factual information provided by Dickey’s, which provided answers to questions in writing, and participated in an extensive interview with reporter, Mr. Brett Anderson.”
Times editor Brian Gallagher responded, “We have carefully reviewed your email and the reporting process. We stand by the reporting and have concluded that no changes are warranted.”
Disputing Financial Allegations
Allegations made by the six former owner-operators interviewed included claims that they bought their franchises based on misleading financial information provided by Dickey’s.
“We do not now, nor have we ever provided financial information to prospective franchisees. We do not believe in making an earnings claim (called an item 19) and do not include an item 19 in our FDD,” said Laura Rea Dickey. “Doing so, in our opinion, undermines the critical role and responsibility a franchisee plays in their own business and profitability, even though an item 19 is not a guarantee. This is easily fact checked in our FDD.”
Several franchisees in the NYT article said their startup costs were higher than they had been told they would be.
Jeffrey Gruber, Senior Vice President of Franchise Administration for Dickey’s, disagrees.
“We provide accurate cost ranges and point out the potential variables that may impact cost depending on a location, as well as highlight the independent decision points made by the franchisee during development that may also impact cost,” said Gruber. “A franchisee may want to include a bar in their restaurant and that is their choice and impacts costs. Or a franchisee may submit a site for real estate approval that is a free standing location and larger than a smaller inline location for which their original cost estimates were generated.”
One person interviewed said the company pressured him to keep his failing stores open.
“We require our franchisees to run on model and uphold our standards. We require folks to exit our system who do not, or will not, uphold our high standards. We provide outstanding, consistent and documented support,” said Laura Rea Dickey. “We also help folks exit the system, if and when they want, whether to retire, profit from selling their successful business or simply realize they want to do something else.”
Gruber added that “an array of factors can contribute to buildout costs and that the company’s franchise disclosure statement (FDD) publishes a range of costs depending on the variables.
“It is terribly unfortunate (when costs go up),” Gruber said, “but it is the nature of the market, not the nature of building a Dickey’s. When it comes to those costs that may be higher than the averages disclosed in the franchise disclosure document, those are instances that are due to market circumstances and discussed.”
A Proactive Approach
In response to the former owner/operator who said Dickey’s pressured him to keep his failing stores open, Laura Rea Dickey said the company has a proactive approach to working with an owner whose restaurant is struggling.
“Company representatives work with the owner to identify problems and to help solve them. The focus is to put the restaurant back on a positive track, and then determine the best path forward for the franchisee. We do this through monthly in-person or virtual store visits and profitability calls by assigned operations team members,” she continued. “They monitor daily sales, check counts, and cost metrics through a real-time system, allowing their team to identify and address potential issues proactively with readiness calls and support. Whether those efforts succeed or fail, and the owner decides to sell, the sale can be initiated by either the owner-operator or the company.”
Data and Franchisee Success
Other allegations by those interviewed for the Times article included corporate requirements that prevented franchisees from earning a profit, including an array of fees and paying above-market rates to vendors affiliated with the parent company.
Dickey’s challenged the accusation with data, including a chart showing their prices to be lower than those of outside vendors, such as Restaurant Depot, Sam’s Club, and others.
“Dickey’s approved vendors (affiliated or otherwise) have competitive rates and top-tier quality,” said Laura Rea Dickey. “Using specific suppliers ensures product consistency and integrity, which is fundamental to Dickey’s brand, and it allows us to leverage purchasing power to secure prices that are generally better than the market. The company’s ongoing support for its owner-operators has resulted in a vast number of successful franchises.”
Former franchisee MJ Breaux, who sold his Dickey’s restaurant in Mesquite, Texas, in March of 2025 after 17 years in business, is a franchisee success story.
“Texas barbecue is not just food, it’s a culture. And I’m proud to have been a part of it. When the opportunity came to partner with the Dickey’s brand, it was an easy decision,” he said. “The Dickey family has been tremendous. I came in green. Just one young guy with one store. They took a chance on me, and I’ll always be grateful for that. I have enjoyed tremendous success here and made sure to find a great person to buy the business and continue this legacy. That was important to me.”
Another successful owner/operator, Joan Dahl, is in a legal dispute with the buyer of her franchises. She confirmed that her stores were profitable and described herself as an active owner and former president of the Pit Owner Association. She sold her stores to spend more time with her then-future husband, and she misses the jalapeño cheddar sausage and pulled pork mac n cheese stack with baked beans.
Legal Filings and Lawsuits
Krage Fox, who acquired Dahl’s stores, has now closed them. He declined to comment for this article due to ongoing litigation. Still, he noted that he had concerns about the agreements Dickey’s made with third-party vendors like GrubHub.
“I had reconciliation issues,” he said. “I couldn’t reconcile transactions. I was getting 52 cents of every dollar (spent with third-party vendors). If I had to eat 48 cents on every dollar, why couldn’t I charge $1.50 instead of being required to charge the same as the online charge? I never got the reconciliation I asked for.”
Dickey’s representatives maintain Fox is not accurate in his statements and provided transcripts of sworn testimony from his bankruptcy hearing that are available as public record here. In these transcripts, Fox’s accountant admits under oath she had never accessed Dickey’s data system and did not actually know how to use it or if it provided the reconciliation she and Fox claim was never provided.
“First, franchisees set their own pricing. Second, third-party vendors set their own platform requirements for parity in pricing with dine-in or online ordering channels that have nothing to do with Dickey’s and it is the same for all restaurants,” said Gruber.
In another development, allegations of legal misconduct by Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A., the attorneys representing three of the former franchisees, including G Six Consulting LLC, are outlined in court documents in a federal lawsuit filed in Illinois.
According to a motion filed by attorneys representing former Dickey’s executive Stephen Mullet, Zarco attorneys violated professional ethics by using one of their clients to contact Mullett — who is represented by counsel — to pressure him into cooperating with their side under threat of legal consequences.
Mullett’s attorneys allege that this communication was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and coerce testimony that would benefit Zarco’s broader campaign against Dickey’s. Audio evidence filed with the motion and can be heard here.
“This wasn’t just informal outreach — it was a coordinated and coercive effort to manipulate my involvement,” Mullett said. “They were attempting to strong-arm me into supporting their narrative through veiled threats and fear tactics.”
Dickey’s claims the lawsuits are part of a “calculated smear campaign” designed to damage its reputation and livelihood, as well as the livelihood of its current franchisees.
As proof of these claims, Dickey’s provided numerous public documents and court filings, all of which can be reviewed here.
“This is concerning because the facts completely disprove these allegations and that should matter,” Laura Rea Dickey said. “We are fighting this so hard because it is a direct assault on the facts, on the family, on the brand, and all of our great franchisees, collectively.”
