A former Rita’s Italian Ice franchise owner has taken to TikTok to share a series of videos detailing her negative experiences with the company, sparking concerns and raising questions about the future and stability of Rita’s franchises. Gina, known as @flicequeen on TikTok, has garnered significant attention with her story, amassing over 16,700 views on her initial video and further elaborating on her ordeal in subsequent updates. Her account paints a picture of significant challenges faced by franchisees, leading many to wonder, “why are Rita’s Italian Ice closing?”
In her initial TikTok post, Gina, who formerly operated a Rita’s Italian Ice store in Lakeland, Florida, disclosed that her franchise agreement was terminated by the company. “I’m here to spill the tea,” she announced, promising to reveal the reasons behind her franchise being cut off and advising viewers against purchasing a Rita’s Italian Ice franchise. Gina pledged to provide evidence to substantiate her claims, drawing viewers into a developing narrative of alleged franchise mismanagement and neglect.
Gina initiated her detailed account in a video titled “Part 1,” aimed at informing potential franchisees about her experiences, both positive and negative, to aid their decision-making process. She recounts that her journey began while she was in labor, demonstrating her initial enthusiasm and commitment to the venture. However, from the outset, Gina encountered stipulations from Rita’s, notably the requirement to exclusively use their designated vendors.
The first hurdle Gina faced was site selection. Rita’s connected her with a real estate agent, who was based in Texas, despite her franchise being in Florida. Gina reported a lack of progress over several months, prompting her to contact Rita’s directly. She was informed by a Rita’s real estate representative that she should have received location options much sooner. Frustrated by the slow pace and lack of results, Gina decided to terminate her relationship with the initial agent.
Adding insult to injury, the agent responded by claiming that Gina would owe them money if she used any of the sites from a link they had previously sent, regardless of her dissatisfaction with their service. Gina expressed her dismay at this interaction, but claims Rita’s did not intervene or support her, stating that the agent’s conduct was solely the vendor’s issue, not Rita’s corporate responsibility.
As Gina proceeded with setting up her store, further complications arose with Rita’s designated construction head. She discovered that essential shelving units would take six to eight weeks to deliver, arriving after her planned opening. Gina emphasized that shelves were a prerequisite for health department approval to operate, as they were necessary for safe food product storage. This delay forced Gina to cancel the order, further straining her relationship with Rita’s.
Subsequently, Gina faced demands for extra delivery fees due to delays from other Rita’s-booked vendors. She credits her on-site construction company for advocating on her behalf, asserting that these additional costs were not her responsibility. Another critical issue emerged when the provided freezer was non-functional. Gina questioned how she could operate an ice cream business without a working freezer, yet felt pressured to proceed regardless. Despite communicating with the repair company and including Rita’s corporate in the email correspondence, Gina alleges that Rita’s remained silent and unsupportive as she was asked to pay for repairs upfront, even before the freezer was fixed.
Gina stated that these accumulating issues revealed a pattern: she was obligated to use Rita’s vendors, who she found to be unprofessional and unreliable. This marked her initial major concern with the franchise system.
In “Part 2” of her series, Gina detailed the events that she believes led to her franchise termination. Approximately a week after her store’s delayed opening, she encountered a customer attempting to pay with a $100 bill. Her staff informed the customer of their policy against accepting $100 bills, prompting the customer to request a manager.
Upon Gina’s arrival, the situation escalated. The customer reportedly became aggressive and later posted on Facebook, falsely accusing Gina of yelling, cursing, and forcibly removing ice cream from her autistic child. These accusations incited a wave of negative online reviews and threats against Gina, her home, and her staff, forcing her to temporarily close her store for safety reasons.
Gina notified Rita’s franchise about the escalating situation. She recounts that Rita’s response was to remove her store’s Facebook page, which she felt exacerbated the problem, leading to further negative reviews on Google. The situation culminated in a phone call with Linda Chadwick, the CEO of Rita’s. Gina claims that despite presenting video evidence supporting her version of events, the conversation devolved into a shouting match. While Gina states they reached a mutual agreement of sorts, the relationship was clearly fractured.
Gina’s decision to sue the customers for defamation further strained her relationship with Rita’s, setting the stage for the “most wild” part of her story, as teased in “Part 3.”
In her third video, Gina shifted focus to product quality concerns raised by her staff. Her team reported feeling unwell after consuming Rita’s products. Gina herself experienced similar symptoms after trying the Italian ice. Upon contacting Rita’s about this issue, she was initially told she wasn’t cleaning her machinery correctly, a claim she refuted, as she personally oversaw the cleaning process.
Seeking answers, Gina consulted other franchisees and learned that improper custard storage temperatures could cause illness. However, Gina confirmed her store’s refrigerator, which was new, maintained proper temperatures. This prompted her to investigate delivery procedures. Gina discovered that deliveries often arrived between 3 to 5 a.m., unsupervised. She decided to arrive for a 4 a.m. delivery and documented the custard arriving at 49 degrees Fahrenheit, significantly above the recommended safe temperature.
Despite alerting Rita’s to this issue and providing photographic evidence, Gina claims the company allowed deliveries at unsafe temperatures to continue for over a month. Rita’s allegedly responded that 42 degrees was considered safe and attributed the temperature issue to the delivery driver’s thermometer. Gina countered that Rita’s own product manuals specified custard should be stored below 42 degrees.
Following these compounding issues—vendor problems, customer service crises, and potential health hazards due to temperature control lapses—Gina decided to close her franchise. She sought compensation from Rita’s for lost income for herself and her staff but was allegedly denied. Gina claims Rita’s suggested she should have opened her store “with the expired product, with the out-of-temperature custard” and simply “made it work.”
Gina’s account has resonated strongly online, with viewers expressing shock and sympathy. Comments range from disbelief at Rita’s alleged actions to support for Gina and the Lakeland community. Her story raises critical questions about franchise support, product safety, and corporate responsibility within Rita’s Italian Ice, potentially explaining why some Rita’s Italian Ice locations might be facing closures or struggling. The Daily Dot has reached out to both Gina and Rita’s Italian Ice for further comment, but as of now, there has been no official response from Rita’s, leaving Gina’s narrative as the primary account of these concerning franchise experiences.
