The Fox Rothschild associate team of Megan Center and Alex Radus recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the “Top Ten Provisions to ‘Never’ Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement”. A summary of this presentation will be prepared in four separate blog posts. The first post focused on central themes of franchise negotiation, and the second post addressed protecting the confidentiality of franchise negotiations.

This installment details the first five of our top ten provisions to “never” negotiate.

1)           Signing “then-current” franchise agreement

  • Typical Provision: Upon transfer, renewal or purchase of an additional unit, the franchisee must sign the franchisor’s then-current form of franchise agreement.
  • Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want the same terms for the entire franchise relationship. Uncertainty increases investment risk and hinders growth.
  • Franchisor Argument: Franchisors spend time and money on continually developing and refining their form of franchise agreements. Franchisors need to rely on the uniform use and enforceability of their then-current franchise agreements. Franchisors cannot predict the future and, given that a renewal franchise agreement will be signed many years after the initial franchise agreement, franchisors need the flexibility to use their then-current form of franchise agreements at that time.
  • Compromise: Parties often agree not to change fees, territory and terms they initially negotiated. If any terms were negotiated due to the “newness” of the relationship, these generally lapse as the relationship matures.

2)           Reservation of Rights – Competitive Units or Brands

  • Typical Provision: Except for the franchisee’s right to operate in the territory, the franchisor reserves all other rights, including to open units in non-traditional venues (stadiums, shopping malls, etc.) and to operate competitive brands in the franchisee’s territory.
  • Franchisee Argument: Franchisees won’t want to compete with company units, which may have greater resources, preferred pricing from suppliers, and may not pay royalties. They may also seek locations near non-traditional venues to capitalize on that market.
  • Franchisor Argument: Franchisors are unable to predict every future business opportunity they may encounter and need flexibility for future growth. Franchisors cannot restrict the sale of the entire franchise system because one franchisee objects. Franchisors need to reach customers through every avenue possible, including non-traditional venues, which may increase brand exposure and visitation of a franchisee’s unit.
  • Compromise: Parties can mitigate competition risk by carving out venues near the franchisee’s location, or granting the franchisee a ROFR to purchase units in non-traditional venues.

3)           Right of First Refusal

  • Typical Provision: Except for the right to operate in the territory, the franchisee has no other rights to operate additional units (within or outside the territory).
  • Franchisee Argument: From the franchisee’s perspective, a right of first refusal (“ROFR”) to purchase additional units is optimal: if the investment is successful, the franchisee can double down, while avoiding the obligation to open additional units under a development agreement.
  • Franchisor Argument: Franchisors need to protect their right to make additional sales without having to check with franchisees. Franchisors will likely be starting out a relationship with a new franchisee and may be unsure as to whether this franchisee would be a good fit as a multi-unit owner.
  • Compromise: The parties can agree to a ROFR subject to certain stipulations. First, the ROFR should lapse if a franchisee refuses it more than a certain number of times. Second, the ROFR will only be available after the franchisee has been successfully operating a unit for a certain period of time. Lastly, it’s important to outline a process for how a franchisee can exercise this right, including a time period on the response.

4)           Marketing Fund

  • Typical Provision: The franchisee must contribute to a national marketing fund. The franchisor can spend the funds as it sees fit.
  • Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want assurances that marketing funds will be spent in their territories. They may also seek to limit the franchisor’s discretion via restrictions on the use of proceeds or oversight (including audits or formation of a franchisee advisory committee).
  • Franchisor Argument: Franchisors are in the best position to determine the most effective way to advertise the franchise system on a national basis. Franchisors need flexibility to promote the franchise systems, including ability to spend in any geographical region. The purpose of the marketing fund is to promote the brand on a national basis and the franchisee should focus its efforts on local advertising in its territory.
  • Compromise: If franchisors have an internal marketing team, they can offer franchisees additional marketing assistance free of charge. Alternatively, franchisors can waive a franchisee’s requirement to contribute to the marketing fund only after a certain number of units are open and operating. In exchange, the franchisee must expend the amount it would have contributed to the marketing fund on local advertising. That way, the funds are still being utilized to promote the brand.

5)           Renewal

  • Typical Provision: Franchisee has the right to renew the franchise agreement a limited number of times (1-2) if certain conditions are satisfied.
  • Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want unlimited renewals. They will argue that as long as they are in compliance with the franchise agreement, they should not lose their business, which is often a franchisee’s livelihood.
  • Franchisor Argument: Franchisors want to avoid creating an evergreen contract. An evergreen contract has an indefinite duration and is difficult to terminate. Franchisors need the ability to evaluate franchisees on a semi-regular basis to determine whether they are still a good fit for the franchise system.
  • Compromise: The parties may agree to longer renewal terms (e.g., one 10-year renewal term instead of two 5-year renewal terms). Clear renewal conditions and a cap on renewal costs will also help franchisees budget and prepare.

In the next installment, we’ll launch into the remaining top 10 provisions to “never” negotiate:

  1. Changing Marks/Renovations/Upgrades
  2. Termination/Cure Period
  3. Indemnification
  4. Assignment
  5. Personal Guaranty

Renewed Efforts to End No Poaching Provisions

Franchisors need to review their franchise agreements and take immediate action in response to the recent onslaught of legal action over “naked no poaching” provisions in franchise agreements.

In a typical franchise agreement, a franchisor will prohibit a franchisee from poaching its or its other franchisees’ employees during the term of the franchise agreement and for a period of time after the franchise agreement ends. Until now, these provisions were fairly commonplace. Franchisors argue these provisions are protect each franchisee’s investment of time and money in its employees, including general managers who sometimes participate in extensive training programs.

Critics of such provisions argue that the practice keeps wages for these employees low and that this is a manipulation of the market. Worker advocacy groups have long pushed for an end to this alleged “anti-competitive” practice. Economists generally agree that no poaching provisions have a negative impact on low-level employee wages.

Moreover, in October 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the FTC issued guidance that naked no poaching agreements are “per se” illegal–meaning that their very existence violates the law and sets companies up for criminal charges.  The DOJ further stated that it intended to criminally prosecute companies employing naked no poaching agreements. While most observers expected that the DOJ under Attorney General Jeff Sessions would retreat from this position, it has not, citing pro-competitive concerns. In fact, in April 2018, the DOJ initiated a criminal complaint against a number of companies respecting naked no poaching agreements. While the case settled with only civil penalties imposed, the DOJ expressly stated that it was reserving the criminal question and planned to “zealously enforce” the law.

Major Brands Settle After Attorney General Files Suit

In July, seven international brands agreed to no longer enforce the no poaching provisions in response to a lawsuit being led by the State of Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In August, eight more large brands followed this trend. Additionally, several state attorneys general, led by  Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Healy but including the AGs of California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania, have sent investigation letters to eight large international franchisors regarding each of their no poaching agreements.

This is only the beginning of the attack on no poaching provisions. In the past year, civil antitrust actions have been filed by employees of franchisees of several large international franchisors.

The potential liability under these actions could be substantial because the class sizes could be immense with treble damages and attorneys’ fees potentially being awarded in any franchisee employee victory.

McDonald’s Loses Bid to Dismiss

McDonald’s’ recent motion to dismiss was denied so the case against that company will proceed. The outcome of this case will be closely watched as a test case for this issue overall. The need to act is further supported by the fact that Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Senator Cory Booker (NJ) are strong advocates of removing the “no poaching” provisions and have introduced legislation to make these acts illegal.

And the DOJ is bringing a criminal antitrust complaint against franchisors for what they call vertically assisted, horizontal conspiracies to fix labor rates, allegedly in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The time to address naked no poaching provisions is now. Franchisors should not wait until the update of your franchise disclosure document in 2019. If you need any assistance navigating through this process, the franchise team at Fox Rothschild is more than happy to assist.

The Fox Rothschild team of Megan Center and Alex Radus recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the “Top Ten Provisions to ‘Never’ Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement.” A summary of this presentation is being presented in four separate blog posts.  The first post focused on the central theme of franchise negotiation from the perspective of the franchisor and franchisee.

This installment highlights a few practice pointers that can save time and money during the negotiation process and protect the confidentiality of your negotiations.  Installments three and four will examine the top ten things never to negotiate in in detail, including typical franchisee requests, franchisor counter-arguments, and common compromises.

When negotiating a franchise agreement, the franchisee should provide a memorandum of the terms he or she proposes to revise.  This can take many forms, from a formal letter of intent to an informal email.  The level of detail will vary, but at a minimum it should cover all of the franchisee’s requests and be thorough enough for the parties to begin negotiations and understand what they are agreeing to.  This process focuses the parties on the most impactful terms and identifies potential deal breakers early in the process, saving time and money.

Copyright: / 123RF Stock Photo

Once the negotiated terms are established, we suggest that they should preferably be included in an addendum to the franchise agreement, which will be attached to the franchisor’s standard form of franchise agreement.  We strongly encourage you to avoid revising the standard franchise agreement.  There are a few reasons for this.  First, it is generally easier and faster to draft and negotiate an addendum rather than redline the entire franchise agreement.  Second, sticking to an addendum will keep revisions focused and precise.  The franchisee’s attorney is likely to make more changes if he or she has the opportunity to redline the entire franchise agreement. Finally, when you need to review the negotiated terms of multiple franchise agreements, short addendums will be easier to review than redlined franchise agreements.

Finally, be sure to protect the confidentiality of your negotiations – but don’t go overboard.  Franchisees will talk to each other, which can be both good and bad.  You want your star franchisees to speak with new and prospective franchisees.  They’re in a great position to give advice that will boost performance, and to be a cheerleader for your system.  However, avoid permitting them to share negotiated terms, which can hurt morale and give new franchisees unreasonable expectations. For example, original or early franchisees may have obtain concessions that were appropriate for a startup system may no longer be appropriate at later stages of the brand’s development.  Moreover, you must be sure to understand the franchise laws of the states where you are offering franchises, which may require you to disclose negotiated terms in certain cases as briefly mentioned in our first post.  Also, as you probably know, disclosures and representations respecting financial performance are fraught with danger and should never be made by franchisees.

Your addendum should include a confidentiality provision that balances these considerations.  The negotiated terms, and the fact that you negotiated your franchise agreement, should be protected from disclosure.  After all, those are private terms between two business partners.  However, franchisors shouldn’t be so specific as to prevent franchisees from communicating in ways that benefit all members of the system.

In the next installment, we’ll launch into the first 5 of our top 10 provisions to “never” negotiate:

1.       Signing the “then-current” franchise agreement

2.       Reservation of Rights

3.       Right of First Refusal

4.       Marketing Fund

5.       Renewal

We, Megan Center and Alex Radus, recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the “Top Ten Provisions to ‘Never’ Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement” and want to share the highlights of that presentation here.  This first of four blog posts will focus on central themes of franchise negotiation from the perspective of both the franchisor and franchisee.

With that, before we jump into the theme of negotiation, we want to briefly touch on the top ten provisions we will cover over the next few blog posts, which are as follows:

1.      “Then-current” form of Franchise Agreement

2.      Reservation of Rights

3.      Right of First Refusal

4.      Marketing Fund

5.      Renewal

6.      Changing Marks/Renovations/Upgrades

7.      Termination/Cure Period

8.      Indemnification

9.      Assignment

10.  Personal Guaranty

In each of the blog posts that follow, we will discuss the typical provision in a franchise agreement, the typical request by a franchisee, and how both a franchisee and franchisor may argue for its respective provision or revision.

By way of introduction, we want to briefly touch on why a franchisor may want to, or in certain circumstances be required to, negotiate provisions of its franchise agreement. First, economic factors may contribute to negotiation points. As the economy ebbs and flows, the sales of franchises often will follow. A franchisor may have to grant more concessions in a bad economy, or vice versa, in order to make a franchise sale.

Second, if an emerging brand, a franchisor may need to offer its original franchisees a more incentivized franchise package than an established franchisor would. Similarly, if a franchisor is trying to entice a multi-unit franchisee or a franchisee that has experience in operating other franchised businesses to join its franchise system, a franchisor may have to “sweeten the pot” and offer more concessions than it would a standard-single unit-franchisee.

Additionally, if a franchisor is expanding internationally, similarly to an emerging brand, a new franchisee will be developing the brand in an entirely different country, often with no brand recognition.  As such, it may need further incentives to take on this additional obligation.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, certain states require that a franchisor amend certain portions of its franchise agreement via a state law addendum. Generally, these changes relate to dispute resolution procedures, governing law, and termination procedures. Further, if you negotiate changes with franchisees in California, you are required to comply with the Negotiated Changes Law in California which mandates disclosure of all material revisions to the franchise documents granted to California franchisees to all California prospects for a year from the closing of the negotiated deal.

The next post in this series will focus on practice pointers if a franchisor chooses to, or is required to, negotiate a franchise agreement.

I recently attended a very informative panel discussion at this year’s IFA Legal Symposium in Washington D.C. earlier this month on addressing data security risks in franchise systems. The panel, consisting of two attorneys with Bank of America Merchant Services provided some good tips and takeaways for franchise systems:

  1. Do tabletops.   Your franchise system should have a data response plan in place for various potential breach scenarios and practice the plan regularly by conducting tabletop exercises. The last thing you want an executive officer of your brand doing after a breach is googling “Is it illegal to secretly pay $100,000 in Bitcoin to a hacker?”

    47541066 – data breach level to maximum modern conceptual meter, isolated on white background
  2. Consider Standardization of POS Systems. While franchise systems may be reluctant to impose additional requirements in fear of vicarious liability claims, the potential exposure for data breach liability may outweigh those considerations. Engage a consultant to find weak spots in your system. Move away from the hodgepodge of various POS Systems and require all franchisees upgrade to current technology. Unless there is an overriding business need to maintain customer data, consider whether it is possible to have franchisees process data directly with vendor – instead of franchisor’s network. Consider advance technologies like point-to-point encryption and tokenization.
  3. Wait to Register Domain Name. If there is a breach and the franchise system will design a site for customers to determine if data was compromised and obtain instructions on credit monitoring, then do not register a domain name too far ahead of the public release of the breach. It may be a tip off to watchful third-parties who may publicize the breach before you are ready.
  4. Collaborate Efforts. When a breach initially happens, it is not helpful to immediately point fingers. Collaborate your response efforts with the franchisees. Telling a franchisee it is their responsibility and not helping to mitigate damage and address the issues does not help the brand.

Franchise systems have a unique set of potential hurdles when it comes to data breaches but with good policies and practices, brands can reduce risk exposure to protect both the franchisor and franchisees.

Last year at the ABA Forum on Franchising Annual Meeting, the programming included a seminar entitled “Between You and Me: A Toolkit to Counsel in and to Smaller Systems.” The purpose of the session was to provide new in-house lawyers an overview of some of the day-to-day legal conundrums that growing brands face and instructions on how to face such issues.

70454390 – high angle view of magnifying glass over background check form

One of the most interesting and important issues addressed during the panel discussion was the franchise application process. Growing brands are often eager to welcome any prospect willing to pay the initial franchise fee. However, all franchise systems have a reason to be selective in the application process. Once a brand meets that critical mass of 50-100 units, it can often afford to be more discerning. Below are some tips to ensuring that a franchise system only accepts the best:

  1. Confirm supporting documents for financing. A financing arrangement may be straightforward if the franchisee is obtaining traditional financing from an institutional lender. However, if a franchisee is expecting a capital investment from friends and family, then you should still require documentation. You do not want a situation where a franchisee is a few months into development and the investing sibling or uncle backs out of the deal.
  2. Do not just run a background check and throw it in a file. Make sure you thoroughly review the results. The panelist described some war stories about clients ordering a background check on owners but failing to analyze it. The background check revealed some serious red flags about the prospect. The franchisor then faced issues with the franchisee down the line that could have been avoided had the franchisor just reviewed the results in the first place.
  3. Always conduct a search of the lists maintained US. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). OFAC maintains a list of all people and entities whose assets are blocked by the US government as a result of sanctions. You can conduct your own search at no cost online and it takes under a minute.
  4. Request supporting documentation such as tax returns and account statements to verify assets. Dig deeper when evaluating a prospective franchisee’s financial wherewithal.
  5. Don’t forget to determine the applicant’s citizen or immigration status.

While there is no surefire way to avoid all problem or underperforming franchisees, developing a comprehensive screening process is one method in decreasing the number.

The National Restaurant Association recently released a new guide for restaurant operators looking for more information on how to increase their cybersecurity efforts.

In 2015, the National Restaurant Association released its first manual for restaurant owners called “Cybersecurity 101: A Toolkit for Restaurant Operators” [PDF] which outlined best practices on five core areas of cybersecurity planning. This past month, the National Restaurant Association built on this manual with the release of “Cybersecurity 201: The Next Step,” [PDF]  which provides restaurant-specific type guidance. The National Restaurant Association utilized the expertise of technology personnel from top multi-unit restaurant companies. The guide is a must-read for any franchise system in the food service space.

The guide takes the cybersecurity framework prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and adapts it for use in the restaurant hospitality industry. Restaurant franchise systems can learn how to apply the NIST standards by reviewing the real world hypotheticals.

18538865 – thief steals credit card and money. illustration in cartoon style

For example, there is “Sam” whose restaurant experiences a data compromise of customer credit cards. After a forensic team descends on his business, Sam quickly realizes how little he understands about who has access to his computer software, which vendors service his POS Systems and how often he upgrades hardware. The result? Sam lost loyal customers and was slapped with a hefty fine from his credit card processors.

In addition to three other nicely detailed case studies, the guide shows how almost 100 different NIST categories can be applied in a restaurant setting, grades cybersecurity action items from most to least urgent and provides a glossary of cybersecurity terms.  Even the most cyber savvy restaurant systems should find the guide full of useful information.

Many franchise agreements contain a provision that restricts a franchisee from hiring or soliciting the employees of the franchisor or other franchisees. A class action lawsuit that was recently filed in the Eastern District of Texas could require removal of this type of provision in the future. Though this suit is only at the initial complaint phase, the outcome of this case could help shape the future of franchisee restrictive covenants.

In Ion v. Pizza Hut, LLC, Kristen Ion (“Ion”) filed this complaint on behalf of similarly-situated managers of Pizza Hut restaurants. Ion claims that Pizza Hut, LLC (“Pizza Hut”) has colluded with all of its franchisees to engage in anticompetitive behavior in violation of the Sherman Act. Further, Ion claims that the restrictive provision is a naked restraint on competition and a per se violation of the antitrust laws.

The provision at issue, as seen in many franchise agreements, forbids a franchise owner from hiring or soliciting any employees of the franchisor, its units, or any other franchise. Ion claims that this restraint eliminated a franchisee’s incentive to offer competitive employment packages to management personnel and restricted the mobility of such personnel. Further, Ion argues that this restraint lowered salaries and benefits due to the limited job marketplace available to Pizza Hut personnel. Ion claims that the training she received from Pizza Hut is only transferable to other Pizza Hut units.

While Ion consistently refers to the fact that each Pizza Hut franchise is its own independent business that has the right to set its own wages for staff, in the same sentence, she argues that the franchisor and franchisees were “co-conspirators” in the endeavor to suppress those wages and mobility. Further, Ion cites to the continued practice of Pizza Hut and its franchisees to cut employee wages and hours through various policies and argues that this restriction is in furtherance of this purpose (as outlined in various news articles). Lastly, Ion claims that executive compensation and franchisee profit increased at the expense of its low-paid management personnel.

However, based on the facts in the complaint, it seems that Ion never attempted to find another job outside of the Pizza Hut franchise system to support her proposition. Further, the citations to commentary by scholars and professors on the topic logically leads one to assume that there is not yet a basis in prior case law for the requested remedy.

The outcome of this case could substantially and materially alter the scope of franchisee restrictive covenants. Any outcome in favor of Ion would trigger an immediate need for revisions to a franchise agreement that contains this restriction and it is important to keep watch of this case.

Fox Rothschild LLP has deployed a new mobile app to assist companies, including franchisors, as they rush to comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – a complex set of new data privacy rules with major implications for businesses.  The app – GDPR Check – helps businesses catalog their data management practices and policies to determine necessary steps to comply with GDPR when it takes effect in May.

“The pending implementation of GDPR will impact all companies that process or control the personal data of any EU citizen,” said Mark G. McCreary, chief privacy officer at Fox Rothschild and co-creator of GDPR Check.  “Every business, regardless of where it is headquartered, will be responsible for complying with these sweeping new data privacy rules when collecting or processing Personal Data,” said Daniel L. Farris, co-chair of the Fox’s Technology Group and co-creator of GDPR Check.

Even if a business does not collect personal data from EU citizens, the GDPR requirements apply to that business if it provides services to another business that must comply with GDPR.  Failure to comply with the regulations can result in fines of up to €20 million (approx. US$24.7 million) or 4 percent of global annual revenue in the prior year.

GDPR Check maps an organization’s data management practices in 17 areas that are key to determining compliance, including:

  • Types of data collected
  • Privacy policies (external and internal)
  • Consent
  • Data retention
  • Breach readiness

The app produces a report for each key area that a company can share with its attorneys and compliance team.

GDPR is intended to protect the rights of EU citizens to control the use of their personal data, including customer data such as birthdates, mailing addresses, IP addresses, product purchases and payment information, as well as supplier data, employee data and “sensitive data” such as health information, race, and sexual orientation.

This is the second app Fox Rothschild has launched in the data privacy space. The firm also maintains Data Breach 411, which provides easy access to applicable state statutes and breach notification rules to enable in-house counsel and compliance professionals, in the midst of a data breach crisis, to quickly identify controlling law and relevant guidance.

GDPR Check is available for free download in the Apple App Store and Google Play stores.

A recent decision in the United States District Court of Arizona (“Court”) could have far-reaching consequences to many franchisors based on the broad-sweeping principles the Court used in its reasoning. In Zounds Hearing Franchising, LLC et. al. v. Bower et. al., the Court answered the question of whether the Ohio Business Opportunity Purchasers Protection Act (BOPPA) trumps a choice of law and venue provision that provides for the application of law other than the State of Ohio.

Here, four franchisees filed suit against Zounds Hearing Franchising, LLC and Zounds Hearing, Inc. (collectively, “Zounds”) in the state court of Ohio for failure to comply with the five-day cancellation requirement under the BOPPA. Further, the aggrieved franchisees claim that Zounds made false, misleading and/or inconsistent representations than that contained in its FDD in connection with the sale of its franchises in violation of the BOPPA. Each Franchise Agreement provides that Arizona law governs the interpretation and enforcement of the Franchise Agreement and all disputes are subject to pre-suit mediation (at Zounds’ option) and venue in Arizona. As such, Zounds moved to remove the suits to Ohio federal court, which then transferred the suits to the instant Court.

In analyzing whether BOPPA should trump the provisions of the Franchise Agreement, the Court relied on the rules of the Restatement of Conflict of Laws. Specifically, the law of the state with the “most significant relationship” to the parties shall govern the agreement or, if the parties chose the law of another state, that state’s law shall govern. However, if the choice of law is contrary to a fundamental policy of the state with the most significant relationship, that state will presume to have the materially greater interest in its state law governing the agreement. In holding that Ohio has the most significant relationship to the parties, the Court noted that all of the franchises and franchisees were located in Ohio and it has a strong interest in protecting its residents, particularly where the underlying statute is designed to protect franchisees that are in an inferior bargaining position. Further, Arizona lacks a statute that protects purchasers of franchises, while BOPPA is directly on point to address the franchisees’ purported harm. Essentially, the franchisees would be left with little recourse against Zounds if Arizona law applied.

Further, the Court held that it is difficult to imagine that a statute that makes certain conduct a crime as being anything but the fundamental policy of the state. Additionally, the Ohio legislature amended the BOPPA in 2012 to explicitly state that any venue or choice of law provision that deprives an Ohio resident of protection thereunder is contrary to public policy, void and unenforceable further evidencing its intent. Lastly, the Court went so far as to say that even if a statute does not explicitly outline that it is fundamental policy of that state, a court still could deem it so by its very nature. Further, the lack of a non-waivability term does not doom the statute under this analysis. These principles may open the door to seemingly endless arguments about what constitutes the fundamental policy of a state.

As such, even though the parties agreed to the Arizona choice of law and venue provisions, the application of Arizona law would be contrary to the public policy of Ohio because Arizona does not have a statute that protects the rights of franchisee purchasers as does Ohio. Further, Ohio has a materially greater interest in the enforcement of its law because the franchisees are Ohio residents and the franchises are located therein.

In the alternative, Zounds filed a motion to compel mediation pursuant to the requirement for pre-suit mediation in Arizona in the Franchise Agreement. Here, the Court determined that the pre-suit mediation requirement violated the franchisees’ rights to Ohio venue because the mediation is “intimately bound up” with the franchisees’ right to sue under the BOPPA. Lastly, the Court determined that the mediations for all four franchisees could be joint despite the Franchise Agreement requiring that all proceedings arising out of the Franchise Agreement be decided on an individual basis. Here, the Court held that because pre-suit mediation was a “proceeding” (as argued by Zounds’ counsel), then the BOPPA prohibitions apply to the mediation requirement and the BOPPA specifically prohibits class action waivers. As such, the requirement to conduct pre-suit mediation was void in violation of the BOPPA. However, the parties conceded to conduct mediation during the course of the suit. As such, the Court required that the parties conduct joint pre-suit mediation. To take it a step further, the Court awarded the franchisees their attorneys’ fees because Zounds burdened the franchisees with a multiplicity of actions in a distant forum. Further, the Court cited the unequal provision in the Franchise Agreement that stated Zounds could recover attorneys’ fees upon a successful claim against a franchisee but did not afford franchisees with a reciprocal right. The Court noted that it would be a presumptive abuse of discretion not to award attorneys’ fees against an unsuccessful party who “used its superior bargaining position to impose such a term”.

Overall, this result could have substantial effects to any franchisor that currently has franchises in Ohio or has Arizona law as its choice of law. This decision suggests courts have wide latitude to determine whether another state has a substantial interest in the transaction and whether that state’s law should govern the agreement. Further, it is important to take note of the consequences this has on a franchisor’s ability to enforce non-binding mediation as a preliminary form of dispute resolution (and on an individual basis) and to collect attorneys’ fees (without a corresponding right afforded to the franchisee). Lastly, it would be prudent for all franchisors to review their franchise agreements in light of this decision.