Franchisees in Three States Pursue Claims Against Get Spiffy and Former CEO Scot Wingo

RALEIGH, N.C. — Franchisees in Maryland, South Carolina and Nebraska are moving forward with claims against Get Spiffy Inc. and Spiffy Franchising LLC, alleging fraud, misrepresentation and franchise law violations tied to a mobile car care franchise model they say failed to deliver as promised.

The latest activity includes mediation demands initiated by Druven on behalf of PSD Ventures LLC in South Carolina, led by Paul Clark, Steve Lanzl, and Dan Haightand DZDI Enterprises LLC in Nebraska, led by Kevin Ziebell. The recent mediation demands follow a pending Maryland case brought by Ross Markajani and MJ Enterprise Holdings Inc., which alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, franchise law violations and civil RICO claims against Spiffy Franchising LLC, Get Spiffy Inc., founder and former CEO Scot Wingo, Karl Murphy and Connor Finnegan.

Wingo is a central figure in the franchisees’ claims. Publicly known as a technology entrepreneur and the face of Spiffy’s growth story, Wingo led the company as it raised major funding rounds, marketed itself as the “Amazon of car care” and expanded the franchise model into new markets. Franchisees allege that, under Wingo’s leadership, the model was sold through misleading representations about national accounts, technology, operational support and scalability.

Spiffy built its brand around mobile services such as detailing, oil changes, tire services and fleet maintenance. Several franchisees allege the company’s high-growth positioning, national account opportunities and promise of corporate support helped persuade them to invest.

But franchisees say the reality behind the brand looked far different. They invested heavily in the business and infrastructure needed to support the customer demand Spiffy’s leadership led them to expect, only to face substantial unexpected costs, faulty equipment, unreliable support, unpaid or rejected invoices and mounting financial strain.

“These matters are not isolated disputes,” said Jeffrey C. Mayes, lead counsel at Druven. “Our clients allege Spiffy made material representations about its franchise model, national accounts and operational support that did not match what franchisees experienced after they invested.”

In the Maryland case, Markajani, an experienced Amazon Delivery Service Partner and father of two, alleges he invested in Spiffy believing the franchise would help him build long-term security for his family. According to the complaint, Markajani was shown a growth model projecting nearly $480,000 in first-year sales, but later learned the Franchise Disclosure Document listed the year-one average at $139,790.

After signing the franchise agreement, Markajani alleges he faced launch delays, equipment problems, national account issues, unpaid invoices and a lack of meaningful guidance on supplies, operations and sales. He says the fallout left his family facing overwhelming debt, the prospect of bankruptcy and the emotional toll of watching a business he believed would create stability become a source of stress and financial uncertainty.

“I thought I was building a future for my family,” Markajani said. “Instead, Spiffy left us drowning in debt and stripped us of our peace of mind.”

In South Carolina and Nebraska, PSD Ventures LLC, operated by Paul Clark, Steve Lanzl, and Dan Haight, and Kevin Ziebell’s DZDI Enterprises LLC have each demanded mediation over disputes tied to the Spiffy Franchise Agreement. The PSD matter raises deeper concerns because its owners were tied to Get Spiffy not only as franchisees, but also as shareholders.

Spiffy announced in August 2024 that Wingo stepped down as CEO, with co-founder Karl Murphy succeeding him, while Wingo remained on the company’s board. As Spiffy pivots toward software and fleet-focused opportunities, franchisees allege the model promoted under Wingo’s leadership left them with losses instead of the scalable business they were sold.

The claims come amid growing scrutiny of how emerging franchise systems are sold to small business owners. Spiffy began franchising in 2020, during a volatile period when many companies were trying to scale new models despite pandemic-related uncertainty. Since then, federal regulators have taken a closer look at whether franchise buyers receive accurate disclosures and information needed to evaluate the risks.

“Spiffy’s pivot only sharpens the question at the center of these cases,” Mayes said. “Our clients allege the model failed to deliver as promised, and they are pursuing accountability for the devastating financial consequences that followed.”

Druven represents five former Spiffy franchisees in matters involving alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, franchise law violations and related claims. One matter has resolved with settlement terms remaining confidential, while others continue through mediation, arbitration and federal court proceedings.v