First-Half 2026 U.S. & Canada Restaurant Closure Report

Key Findings

RestaurantData.com estimates that 8,171 restaurant locations closed across the United States and Canada during the first half of 2026. The analysis reviews closure activity by geography, ownership structure, service format, cuisine, alcohol service, meal period, size and operating profile.

This publication is part of the RestaurantData Research Center, which organizes the company’s location-level studies, methodology papers and recurring market analyses.

8,171 estimated restaurant closures were recorded during the first half of 2026. The estimate covers locations in the United States and Canada from January through June.

4,253 chain-affiliated locations and 3,918 independent restaurants with no known affiliation closed. Chain-affiliated locations represented 52.1% of the estimate, compared with 47.9% for independent locations.

7,593 estimated closures were in the United States and 579 were in Canada. The United States represented 92.9% of the combined total, while Canada represented 7.1%.

Texas recorded an estimated 1,039 restaurant closures. That was the highest state and provincial total and represented 12.7% of the combined U.S. and Canadian estimate.

The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area recorded an estimated 491 closures. It ranked first among records with a metropolitan classification.

Quick-service restaurants accounted for an estimated 4,092 closures. They represented 51.5% of records with a valid service-format classification. Casual and family dining accounted for 2,793 closures, representing 35.2%.

Sandwich restaurants accounted for an estimated 2,120 closures. They represented 26.2% of records with a primary-cuisine classification. Bar food followed with 987 closures, and American cuisine followed with 702.

3,934 classified locations had no alcohol listed. They represented 61.8% of usable alcohol-service records. Full-bar restaurants accounted for 1,791 closures, representing 28.1%.

4,617 closures were in the $4-$15+ check-average band. This category represented 58.2% of records with a usable check-average classification.

3,080 classified closures involved locations with fewer than 25 seats. Restaurants with at least 200 seats still accounted for 1,507 closures, representing 19.2% of records with a seat-count classification.

3,013 of the 4,092 quick-service closures were chain-affiliated. Chain locations represented 73.6% of the quick-service category. Independents accounted for 2,318 of the 2,793 casual and family dining closures, representing 83.0%.

The 8,171 estimate measures location closures, not failure rates. Large states and restaurant categories may produce higher counts because they contain more operating locations. Rate analysis requires an active-location denominator.

Market Overview

All category shares are calculated from records with a usable classification for the relevant field, so individual table totals may sum below the 8,171 headline estimate. The report does not identify individual restaurant brands.

Ownership structure

Closures were split almost evenly between chain-affiliated and independent locations. The records include turnover across both operating structures rather than concentrating in only one segment.

“Independent” means a location with no known chain affiliation in the RestaurantData record. It does not imply that the business had no outside investors, partners or related entities.

Country distribution

The United States accounted for most recorded closures. Canada represented a smaller share. Unless otherwise noted, the geography tables include both countries.

States and provinces

Texas recorded the largest raw number of closures, followed by New York, California and Illinois. These are counts, not closure rates. Large restaurant markets naturally tend to generate larger numbers of openings and closures.

A rate analysis would require an active-location denominator for every state and province. This report therefore avoids labeling any jurisdiction as “best,” “worst” or most at risk.

Cities with the most estimated closures

Houston led the city-level file, narrowly ahead of New York. City counts are useful for identifying concentrations of market activity, but municipal boundaries vary widely and should not be treated as directly comparable market sizes. Cities are counted as city-state pairs, so identically named cities in different states and provinces are ranked separately.

City shares are calculated against the combined 8,171 U.S. and Canadian estimate. Oklahoma City, Baltimore, Salt Lake City and Memphis tied for the twenty-fifth position.

Counties with the most estimated closures

County totals add a second geographic lens. Harris County, Texas and Cook County, Illinois led the file, followed by New York County, New York and several large counties in Texas and the West. Counties are counted as county-state pairs, so identically named counties in different states are ranked separately.

County coverage was available for most records used in the geographic analysis. County shares are calculated against the 7,593 U.S. estimate, consistent with the state table. El Paso County, Texas and San Diego County, California tied for the twentieth position.

Metropolitan markets

Metropolitan-area analysis groups activity across adjoining cities and suburbs. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island had the highest estimated count, followed by Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

A metropolitan classification was not available for every record.

Service-format distribution

Quick-service restaurants represented just over half of the classified closure file. Casual/family dining accounted for roughly one-third, while fast casual represented a little more than one-tenth.

Values that appeared to belong to adjacent fields were excluded.

Primary-cuisine distribution

Sandwich concepts formed the largest primary-cuisine category in the closure file. Bar food, American, bakery/café, pizza and Mexican/Latin restaurants followed. The result reflects both category exposure and closure activity; it is not a category failure-rate ranking.

The table uses Cuisine 1 only. Secondary cuisine fields were not added because doing so would count some locations more than once.

Alcohol-service profile

Among records with a usable alcohol classification, locations with no alcohol listed formed the largest group. Full-bar restaurants also accounted for a material share of classified records.

Interpretation note: The no-alcohol category produced the largest closure count among records with a usable alcohol classification. This does not establish that restaurants without alcohol service closed at a higher rate. A rate comparison would require the number of active restaurants in each alcohol-service category during the same period.

Blank and structurally shifted values were excluded.

Meal-period profile

Lunch-and-dinner operations and all-day breakfast/lunch/dinner operations dominated the usable meal-period records. This aligns with the heavy representation of quick service, fast casual and casual/family formats.

Interpretation note: Breakfast-only and breakfast-and-lunch locations appeared less frequently among closed locations than restaurants serving lunch and dinner. This pattern should not be interpreted as a survival advantage for breakfast-focused restaurants. Meal-period categories overlap, the active population differs by daypart, and a rate comparison would require the number of operating restaurants in each meal-period group.

Check-average bands

Lower check-average bands accounted for most classified records. The $4-$15+ band was the largest, followed by $10-$30+ and $15-$40+.

Interpretation note: Lower check-average bands accounted for most classified closures. This does not show that lower-priced restaurants faced greater closure risk. Lower-price formats represent a large share of the restaurant population, and the source values are categorical estimates. A rate-based conclusion would require active-location counts for each check-average band.

Check-average values are categorical source estimates, not audited transaction data.

Restaurant size indicators

The records cover a range of operating footprints. Small locations were common, while larger dining rooms and higher-seat-count restaurants were also represented.

Operating indicators

Employee and sales estimates provide additional context for the kinds of locations represented. They should be read as profile indicators rather than precise economic measurements.

Year-established profile

Among locations with a valid year-established field, newer establishments were highly visible. That does not prove that young restaurants have a higher failure rate, because the report does not compare the closure count with the number of active restaurants in each age group.

A year-established value was not available for every record.

Cross-tab analysis

The cross-tabs describe the composition of selected categories. They identify the types of locations within each segment. They do not measure failure rates.

Service format × ownership structure

Quick-service and fast-casual closure records leaned more heavily toward chain affiliation, while casual/family and upscale-dining records contained a larger independent component.

Service format × alcohol classification

No-alcohol locations dominated quick service and fast casual. Full-bar classifications were concentrated in casual/family and upscale dining, producing a distinctly different operating profile.

Primary cuisine × service format

The ten largest cuisine categories were not distributed evenly across formats. Sandwich, coffee/tea, burger and donut records were concentrated in quick service, while bar food and American restaurants leaned toward casual/family dining.

States by ownership structure

The chain-independent mix varied materially by geography. This table provides a more useful state profile than raw totals alone, although it still does not calculate state-level closure rates.

Each cell shows the estimated six-month count and the row share beneath it. Cross-tabs exclude records without a valid value in both fields.

What the First-Half File Shows

Four patterns stand out in the composition of the closure file. Each describes what the closed locations looked like, not why they closed and not how their closure rates compare with the active market.

Chain and independent closures concentrated in opposite formats

Chain-affiliated locations accounted for 3,013 of the 4,092 quick-service closures, representing 73.6% of that category. The relationship inverted in full service: independents accounted for 2,318 of the 2,793 casual and family dining closures, representing 83.0%. The two ownership structures produced nearly even totals overall, 4,253 chain and 3,918 independent, but they exited through very different kinds of restaurants.

The typical closed location fit a small-footprint, low-check profile

Sandwich concepts alone represented 2,120 closures, or 26.2% of the classified cuisine file, and 96.9% of those sandwich records were quick service. That profile repeats across the operating fields: 3,080 closed locations had fewer than 25 seats, 3,897 occupied 1,000-1,999 square feet, and 4,617 fell in the $4-$15+ check-average band. The first-half file was dominated by compact, counter-service formats rather than large dining rooms.

Recently established locations were highly visible

Among records with a valid year-established field, 1,677 closed locations, representing 39.9%, were established between 2024 and 2026, more than the combined total for every establishment year before 2016. Because the report does not compare these counts with the number of active restaurants in each age group, this describes the makeup of the closure file rather than a measured failure rate for young restaurants.

The chain-independent mix varied sharply by state

Texas led all jurisdictions with 1,039 estimated closures, and its file leaned independent at 57.6%. Florida showed the opposite profile: 222 of its 249 closures, representing 89.3%, were chain-affiliated. Washington sat at the other end at 34.6% chain. State totals alone obscure these differences in who is exiting each market.

Research implications

Closure counts describe one side of restaurant-market turnover. Restaurant formation is examined separately through Restaurant Opening Analysis, which follows new locations from early public signals through verification and company classification.

The closure file is most useful when treated as one side of restaurant-market turnover. It provides evidence about where locations exited the market and what operating characteristics they shared, but the next level of analysis comes from comparing these closures with openings, active-location counts and prior periods.

The report intentionally stops before making causal claims. The data describes recorded closures; explanations for those closures require additional company, property, financial and local-market research.

The location-level records behind this report, including company affiliation, ownership relationships and full operating profiles, are maintained in Atlas by RestaurantData. Organizations that need the granular data for their own analysis can contact RestaurantData for access.

Related RestaurantData Research

The closure report can be read alongside RestaurantData’s first-half 2026 restaurant opening cross-tab analysis, which examines verified U.S. opening activity by geography, cuisine, service format, ownership and other operating characteristics. RestaurantData’s 2025 New Restaurant Openings Report provides an additional full-year view of U.S. restaurant formation.

The opening reports cover the United States only, while this closure report includes both the United States and Canada; the frequently asked questions below explain the coverage difference. The two report families should therefore not be combined into a net-change calculation unless their geography, definitions and observation periods are aligned.

Restaurant ownership and portfolio structure are examined in RestaurantData’s multi-concept restaurant operators analysis. Company expansion is evaluated separately through the Expansion Pressure Index™, while larger restaurant companies, ownership groups and enterprise structures are organized through the Restaurant Enterprise Index™. These resources address organizational structure, company movement and scale rather than location closures alone.

RestaurantData research principles

RestaurantData’s closure research is guided by a conservative verification standard. The objective is not to classify locations as quickly as possible, but to avoid removing an operating restaurant from Atlas by RestaurantData without sufficient evidence.

Accuracy over speed. When available information is incomplete or contradictory, RestaurantData continues researching the location rather than immediately classifying it as permanently closed.

Human research. Closure determinations are reviewed by human researchers. Automated signals may identify records requiring attention, but they do not independently determine a final closure status.

Multiple sources. Researchers evaluate telephone findings, restaurant and company websites, social media, public notices, licensing information, news coverage, public records and other information available in the public sphere.

Conservative classification. A location generally remains active when the evidence is uncertain. RestaurantData seeks corroborating information before applying a permanent-closure designation.

Continuous verification. Restaurant locations, companies, contacts, ownership relationships, parent-company connections and organizational hierarchies are reviewed throughout the year as part of a broader verification cycle.

Ongoing refinement. Restaurant-industry information changes continuously. Records may be updated when additional evidence, direct confirmation or authoritative documentation becomes available.

Frequently asked questions

What qualifies as a restaurant closure?

A restaurant closure is recorded after RestaurantData’s research indicates that a location has permanently ceased operating as a restaurant. Temporary shutdowns, seasonal pauses, renovations, relocations, ownership transitions and short-term interruptions are not treated as permanent closures unless subsequent research supports that conclusion.

How does RestaurantData identify closures?

RestaurantData uses a combination of direct telephone research, restaurant and company websites, social-media activity, public notices, licensing information, news reports, public records and other customer-facing and publicly available evidence. Human researchers compare the available signals before making a closure determination.

Are locations classified as closed automatically?

No. Automated and digital signals can identify records that require review, but RestaurantData does not rely on a single mapping service, website status, disconnected telephone number or social-media signal to classify a location as permanently closed. Human review remains part of the process.

How does RestaurantData reduce false positives?

The research process is intentionally conservative. When practical, researchers seek corroborating evidence from more than one source. When the information remains uncertain, the location generally stays active in Atlas pending additional verification. This approach may delay some closure classifications, but it reduces the risk of removing a restaurant that is still operating.

Can some closures be identified later?

Yes. No location-level database can identify every market change immediately. Some closures are difficult to confirm, some businesses retain active websites and telephone listings after closing, and some operating transitions are not publicly announced. RestaurantData prefers a delayed classification to an unsupported closure designation.

How are franchise locations researched?

RestaurantData independently researches franchise-location activity throughout the year. When Franchise Disclosure Documents are available, the company may also review them as part of its quality-assurance and historical-reconciliation process. FDDs are generally a confirming source rather than the primary mechanism for discovering current closures, because disclosure documents may be published after the underlying location changes occurred.

Why might RestaurantData wait for an FDD and further authoritative confirmation?

In cases where the available evidence is incomplete, RestaurantData may retain a location as active until an FDD, company communication, direct confirmation or further authoritative documentation resolves the uncertainty. The goal is to avoid presenting an unverified inference as a confirmed closure.

Why can historical counts change?

Restaurant-industry records are dynamic. As direct research is completed, businesses respond, public records are updated and franchise disclosures become available, individual location histories may be refined. Future reports may therefore incorporate newly verified information relating to earlier periods.

How often is RestaurantData’s information verified?

RestaurantData performs ongoing research and conducts broad verification of its companies, contacts, locations, ownership relationships, parent-company connections and organizational hierarchies multiple times each year. The First-Half Restaurant Closure Report is produced from that larger, continuing research process.

Why can RestaurantData’s totals differ from other reports?

Published totals may differ because organizations use different definitions, time periods, geographic coverage and source material. Some analyses rely on surveys, bankruptcy filings, government statistics and announcements. RestaurantData’s report is based on location-level research and its own verification standards across the United States and Canada.

Does a location closure mean the company failed?

No. This report measures location-level closures. A multi-unit company may close individual restaurants while continuing to operate and expand elsewhere. Locations also close because of relocations, lease decisions, portfolio changes, conversions, ownership transfers and other circumstances that do not represent company failure.

Why do the opening and closure reports have different geographic coverage?

The closure report includes the United States and Canada. RestaurantData’s new-opening reports currently cover the United States because the research depends on broad, early-stage public information sources that can identify proposed and developing restaurants at the earliest legally available point. Comparable Canadian sources are not consistently available with the same timing, accessibility and volume. For that reason, U.S. opening totals should not be directly netted against the U.S. and Canadian closure total.

About RestaurantData Research

RestaurantData maintains a continuously reviewed database of restaurant locations, operating companies, franchise organizations, ownership relationships, executive contacts, parent companies and organizational hierarchies across the United States and Canada. The research process connects individual location changes to the companies and ownership structures behind them.

The First-Half 2026 U.S. & Canada Restaurant Closure Report is one publication produced from that broader research program. Its purpose is to present location-level closure patterns without identifying individual restaurant brands and without treating every location closure as a company failure.

Methodology and limitations