Discontinuation of vehicle line does not constitute franchise termination under Ohio law

February 27, 2026

Alert

In MD Auto Group, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 1:21-CV-1584 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2025), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), holding that Nissan's decision to discontinue its NV line of commercial vehicles did not constitute a termination of a franchise under Ohio's Motor Vehicle Dealer Act (OMVDA) and did not breach the parties' Dealer Agreement. This important decision clarifies the boundaries of franchise termination protections in the automotive dealer context.

Background

MD Auto Group, LLC MD Auto) operated a Nissan dealership in Sheffield, Ohio and was a "Business Certified Dealer" authorized to sell Nissan's NV Cargo, NV Passenger, and NV200 commercial vans (the NV vehicles). Business Certified Dealers were required to meet certain qualifications, including maintaining two dedicated service bays, a 12,000-pound lift, and a dedicated Commercial Vehicle Accounts Manager.

The relationship between the parties was governed by a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (the Dealer Agreement), which incorporated standard provisions and was supplemented by a Product Addendum (authorizing the sale of various Nissan cars and trucks, including the NV200) and a Supplemental Product Addendum (authorizing the sale of the NV Cargo and NV Passenger vehicles).

In October 2020, Nissan notified dealers that it would cease North American production of the NV vehicles in mid-2021, citing the vehicles' failure to meet evolving regulatory requirements, lack of competitiveness, and negative operating profit. Nissan offered a one-time financial allocation to assist with the transition, but MD Auto declined.

MD Auto filed suit alleging that Nissan violated the OMVDA's notice requirements and good faith obligations, sought declaratory judgment, and asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

No separate franchise existed in the NV vehicles

The central question before the court was whether the Supplemental Product Addendum created a separate "franchise" in the NV vehicles, such that Nissan's discontinuation of those vehicles would trigger the 12-month notice requirement under O.R.C. § 4517.541.

As a matter of first impression and concluded that the OMVDA requires the existence of a "franchise" — not merely the discontinuance of a "line-make" — to trigger the notice provisions. The court rejected MD Auto's argument that the discontinuation of a line-make alone constituted a franchise termination, finding that such an interpretation would improperly render the word "franchise" in O.R.C. § 4517.541 superfluous.

The court also held that the Supplemental Product Addendum was a part of the Dealer Agreement — not a separate franchise — for several key reasons:

The express terms of the Supplemental Product Addendum and its cover letter stated it was "not a change to the Dealer Agreement but rather an update to the existing product addenda".

The Supplemental Product Addendum itself stated it was "in addition to any other currently effective Product Addendum".
Both before and after the NV vehicles were discontinued, MD Auto continued to identify itself as a Nissan dealer, selling other Nissan vehicles and providing warranty service on the NV vehicles.
The Dealer Agreement broadly granted MD Auto the right to sell "Nissan Vehicles," a term that already encompassed vans, meaning the Supplemental Product Addendum did not create a separate franchise in vehicles already contemplated by the Dealer Agreement.

Nissan acted in good faith

The court found that Nissan did not violate the good faith requirement under O.R.C. § 4517.59(A)(1). Nissan exercised its contractual right under Section 7.G of the Standard Provisions, which expressly allowed it to discontinue any Nissan product at any time. The court noted that Nissan's decision was supported by legitimate business reasons, including negative operating revenue and the inability to meet evolving safety requirements. Because no separate franchise existed, there was no termination, cancellation, or non-renewal of a franchise.

The court rejected MD Auto's breach of contract claim, holding that Section 12.F of the Standard Provisions — which requires 12 months' notice — is only triggered if Nissan ceases selling or distributing all "Nissan Vehicles," not merely one particular vehicle line.

Finally, the court held that no fiduciary relationship existed between Nissan and MD Auto. Under California law, the obligations and controls cited by MD Auto — such as facility specifications, accounting requirements, and pricing authority — were standard features of a franchisor-franchisee relationship and did not give rise to special trust and confidence. The court noted that Nissan did not exercise "near life and death economic power" over MD Auto through standard franchise obligations.

Tips for franchisors

Maintain clear addendum language. Nissan prevailed in large part because the Supplemental Product Addendum and its cover letter unambiguously stated it was an update to — not a replacement of — the Dealer Agreement. Franchisors should ensure that addenda and supplemental agreements are expressly drafted as components of the master franchise agreement, not as standalone documents that could be construed as creating separate franchise relationships.

Preserve broad product discontinuation rights. Section 7.G of the Standard Provisions, which reserved Nissan's right to discontinue any product "at any time" in its "sole discretion," was critical to the court's analysis on multiple claims. Franchisors should include — and preserve — similar provisions in their dealer and franchise agreements.

Document legitimate business justifications. Nissan's ability to point to concrete business reasons for discontinuing the NV vehicles (negative operating profit, regulatory compliance challenges, and lack of market competitiveness) supported the court's finding of good faith. Franchisors should maintain thorough documentation of the business rationale behind significant product or line decisions.

Tips for franchisees

Understand the distinction between a franchise and an addendum. This opinion makes clear that a product addendum, even one that authorizes the sale of an entire vehicle line, may not constitute a separate franchise under state dealer protection statutes. Franchisees should carefully review the structure and language of their agreements to understand the scope of their franchise rights.

Scrutinize the statutory framework in your jurisdiction. The court's analysis turned heavily on the specific language of the OMVDA, which does not include the "community of interest" element found in other states' franchise protection statutes. Franchisees in states with different statutory definitions may have stronger arguments for characterizing addenda as separate franchises.

Negotiate for stronger termination protections. Franchisees should consider negotiating for contractual protections that specifically address partial product line discontinuations.

Preserve evidence of independent investment. Franchisees who invest significantly in a particular product line should document those investments carefully.

Practical takeaways

This decision reinforces that every product discontinuation decision does not trigger franchise termination protections under the OMVDA and similar state statutes. The court drew a clear line between terminating a franchise relationship and exercising a contractual right to discontinue a product line.

For dealership and franchise practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that the structure of the governing documents matters enormously. The language used in addenda, cover letters, and standard provisions will be carefully parsed by courts evaluating whether a separate franchise exists. Finally, this case is a cautionary note that claims of fiduciary duty in the franchisor-franchisee context face an uphill battle. Courts continue to hold that the inherent power imbalances and control mechanisms typical of franchise relationships do not, without more, create fiduciary obligations.

In Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., the Sixth Circuit underscores how a franchisor’s lack of transparency in franchise sales and support can foreclose injunctive or other equitable relief—even where competitive harms by franchisees are evident.

When acquiring a business that operates under a franchise agreement, the franchise relationship introduces a third party — the franchisor — whose rights, approvals, and ongoing requirements can fundamentally shape the value and viability of the acquisition. This article examines five critical areas of franchise due diligence that every buyer should address before closing on the purchase of a franchisee.