Under what circumstances does Minnesota law prevent Anago from requiring litigation to be conducted outside of Minnesota?

According to Anago's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, Minnesota law, specifically Minn. Stat. Sec. 80C.21 and Minn. Rule 2860.4400J, may prevent Anago from requiring franchisees to conduct litigation outside of Minnesota. This protection is not absolute, as the FDD states that the prohibition applies 'except in certain specified cases.'

This means that if a dispute arises between Anago and a Minnesota franchisee, the franchisee may have the right to have the case heard in Minnesota courts, even if the franchise agreement specifies a different venue. This could be a significant advantage for Minnesota franchisees, as it allows them to litigate closer to home and potentially avoid the expense and inconvenience of traveling to Anago's preferred jurisdiction (Pompano Beach, Florida, as indicated elsewhere in the FDD).

However, the FDD also states that Anago will enforce the venue provisions in its Subfranchise Rights Agreement to the extent the law allows. This suggests that Anago may attempt to enforce out-of-state venue clauses in situations where it believes Minnesota law does not strictly prohibit it. Prospective franchisees should seek legal counsel to understand their rights under Minnesota law and how they apply to the specific terms of the Anago franchise agreement. It is important to determine what these 'certain specified cases' are where litigation outside of Minnesota could be required, as this could impact a franchisee's legal strategy and costs in the event of a dispute.