Legal
No chairperson, no meetings, no clarity — franchise operators are left guessing on future wages
Ready to explore?
California's Fast Food Council—established by AB 257 (the FAST Recovery Act, signed September 2022) to set wages and working conditions for quick-service chain workers—has been effectively leaderless since early 2025. Chairperson Nick Hardeman resigned his position, and as of May 2026 Governor Gavin Newsom had not appointed a successor [1]. The council, which requires a chair to convene and vote on new standards, had not held a formal meeting in over a year [1][3].
AB 257 created the council as a first-of-its-kind regulatory body with the authority to raise the statewide fast food minimum wage above the legislated $20-per-hour floor—and to set working conditions including scheduling requirements, training mandates, and safety protocols—without requiring additional legislative action. That authority requires the council to meet, deliberate, and vote. None of that has happened since Hardeman's departure.
The dormancy follows a turbulent period for the council. AB 257 was challenged by an industry-funded referendum campaign in 2023–2024 that collected enough signatures to place a repeal measure on the ballot. The referendum effort ultimately failed when the industry agreed not to place it before voters in exchange for legislative adjustments to the bill—but the political fight left the council's institutional footing uncertain even before the chair resigned.
Prospective buyers of California QSR franchises face a peculiar kind of uncertainty: the wage floor is known and stable (the $20-per-hour minimum is law regardless of council activity), but the ceiling is not. A newly appointed chair could call a meeting and initiate a wage-increase vote within a matter of weeks. Alternatively, the council could remain dormant through 2026 and into 2027 without any action.
For underwriting purposes, labor cost modeling for California fast food units should include a scenario in which the council reconvenes and votes a wage increase to $21 or $22 per hour in 2027 or 2028. The statutory framework gives the council authority to raise wages once per year, and the current $20 floor has not been increased since it took effect April 1, 2024.
Employment lawyers at Fisher Phillips noted in May 2026 that the lack of leadership creates compliance uncertainty even beyond wages—the council also has authority over scheduling policies and workplace safety standards that could impose additional operational requirements on franchisees [2]. A unit economics model that only contemplates wage costs may be underestimating the full regulatory risk of the California fast food operating environment.
Buyers should also note that AB 257's applicability threshold—chains with 60 or more locations nationally—means that most national franchise brands are affected. Only very small or regional chains operating below the 60-location threshold fall outside the council's jurisdiction.
Three signals will determine when this uncertainty resolves for franchise buyers and operators. First, a Newsom appointment to the chair position—which could happen at any time and could restart council activity within weeks. Second, any amendment to AB 257 that restructures council governance or modifies the chair-requirement for meeting convening. Third, a legal challenge to the council's dormancy filed by worker advocacy groups or industry associations seeking to compel action.
KPBS reported in May 2026 that labor advocates were growing frustrated with the lack of leadership and were exploring options to compel action [3]. CalMatters coverage in the same period confirmed that no appointment was imminent as of late May [1].
Franchise buyers with California site plans should monitor appointment news closely, review labor counsel guidance quarterly, and avoid signing franchise agreements or lease commitments in California fast food without a current legal opinion on the council's regulatory posture. Fisher Phillips published a client alert in May 2026 summarizing the current state and what employers should monitor [2]—a useful reference for any buyer's due diligence checklist.