What is the impact of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act on the Aerus franchise agreement?
Aerus Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
ise is a resident of Washington; and/or (c) the franchised business that is the subject of the sale is to be located or operated, wholly or partly, in Washington.
1. Conflict of Laws. In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.
2. Franchisee Bill of Rights. RCW 19.100.180 may supersede provisions in the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning your relationship with the franchisor, including in the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise. There may also be court decisions that supersede the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning your relationship with the franchisor. Franchise agreement provisions, including those summarized in Item 17 of the Franchise Disclosure Document, are subject to state law.
3. Site of Arbitration, Mediation, and/or Litigation. In any arbitration or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington, the arbitration or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the arbitration or mediation, or as determined by the arbitrator or mediator at the time of arbitration or mediation. In addition, if litigation is not precluded by the franchise agreement, a franchisee may bring an action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the sale of franchises, or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, in Washington.
4. General Release. A release or waiver of rights in the franchise agreement or related agreements purporting to bind the franchisee to waive compliance with any provision under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act or any rules or orders thereunder is void except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel, in accordance with RCW 19.100.220(2). In addition, any such release or waiver executed in connection with a renewal or transfer of a franchise is likewise void except as provided for in RCW 19.100.220(2).
5. Statute of Limitations and Waiver of Jury Trial. Provisions contained in the franchise agreement or related agreements that unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, or rights or remedies under the Act such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.
6. Transfer Fees. Transfer fees are collectable only to the extent that they reflect the franchisor's reasonable estimated or actual costs in effecting a transfer.
7. Termination by Franchisee. The franchisee may terminate the franchise agreement under any grounds permitted under state law.
8. Certain Buy-Back Provisions. Provisions in franchise agreements or related agreements that permit the franchisor to repurchase the franchisee's business for any reason during the term of the franchise agreement without the franchisee's consent are unlawful pursuant to RCW 19.100.180(2)(j), unless the franchise is terminated for good cause.
9. Fair and Reasonable Pricing. Any provision in the franchise agreement or related agreements that requires the franchisee to purchase or rent any product or service for more than a fair and reasonable price is unlawful under RCW 19.100.180(2)(d).
10. Waiver of Exemplary & Punitive Damages. RCW 19.100.190 permits franchisees to seek treble damages under certain circumstances. Accordingly, provisions contained in the franchise agreement or elsewhere requiring franchisees to waive exemplary, punitive, or similar damages are void, except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel, in accordance with RCW 19.100.220(2).
11. Franchisor's Business Judgement. Provisions in the franchise agreement or related agreements stating that the franchisor may exercise its discretion on the basis of its reasonable business judgment may be limited or superseded by RCW 19.100.180(1), which requires the parties to deal with each other in good faith.
12. Indemnification. Any provision in the franchise agreement or related agreements requiring the franchisee to indemnify, reimburse, defend, or hold harmless the franchisor or other parties is hereby modified such that the franchisee has no obligation to indemnify, reimburse, defend, or hold harmless the franchisor or any other indemnified party for losses or liabilities to the extent that they are caused by the indemnified party's negligence, willful misconduct, strict liability, or fraud.
13. Attorneys' Fees. If the franchise agreement or related agreements require a franchisee to reimburse the franchisor for court costs or expenses, including attorneys' fees, such provision applies only if the franchisor is the prevailing party in any judicial or arbitration proceeding.
**14.
Source: Item 23 — Receipts (FDD pages 74–305)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Aerus's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act has several significant impacts on the franchise agreement for franchisees operating in Washington. In the event of conflicting laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act will take precedence. Additionally, RCW 19.100.180, also known as the Franchisee Bill of Rights, may override specific provisions in the Aerus franchise agreement, especially those concerning termination and renewal. Court decisions may also supersede the franchise agreement. Any arbitration or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington must occur in Washington, unless otherwise agreed upon or determined by the arbitrator or mediator.
The Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act also affects releases and waivers. Any release or waiver of rights that requires a franchisee to waive compliance with the Act is void unless it is part of a negotiated settlement after the franchise agreement is in effect and both parties are represented by independent counsel, as per RCW 19.100.220(2). This also applies to releases or waivers connected to franchise renewals or transfers, with the same exception under RCW 19.100.220(2).
Furthermore, provisions in the Aerus franchise agreement that unreasonably restrict the statute of limitations for claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, or that limit rights or remedies under the Act, such as the right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable. Any statements, questionnaires, or acknowledgments signed by a franchisee at the start of the franchise relationship cannot waive claims under state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on statements made by Aerus or its representatives. Any provision that prohibits a franchisee from communicating with regulators is unlawful under RCW 19.100.180(2)(h). Finally, Aerus's franchise agreement is amended to clarify that franchisees are not obligated to indemnify parties for losses caused solely by the indemnified party's gross negligence, willful misconduct, strict liability, or fraud.