In Washington, what happens to provisions in the Apricot Lane franchise agreement that conflict with limitations on noncompetition covenants?
Apricot_Lane Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
lease or waiver of rights executed by a franchisee may not include rights under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act or any rule or order thereunder except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel. Provisions such as those which unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Act, or rights or remedies under the Act such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.
Transfer fees are collectable to the extent that they reflect the franchisor's reasonable estimated or actual costs in effecting a transfer
Pursuant to RCW 49.62.020, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an employee, including an employee of a franchisee, unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed $100,000 per year (an amount that will be adjusted annually for inflation). In addition, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an independent contractor of a franchisee under RCW 49.62.030 unless the independent contract
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 51–222)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Apricot Lane's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, any provisions within the franchise agreement that conflict with Washington state's limitations on noncompetition covenants are considered void and unenforceable in Washington. This protection extends to employees and independent contractors of Apricot Lane franchisees.
Specifically, for an employee of an Apricot Lane franchisee, a noncompetition covenant is unenforceable if their annualized earnings from the party seeking enforcement do not exceed $100,000 per year, a figure that will be adjusted annually for inflation. Similarly, for an independent contractor of an Apricot Lane franchisee, a noncompetition covenant is unenforceable if their annualized earnings from the enforcing party do not exceed $250,000 per year, also subject to annual inflation adjustments.
Furthermore, Apricot Lane is prohibited from restricting a franchisee from soliciting or hiring any employee of another Apricot Lane franchisee or any employee of Apricot Lane itself. Any provisions in the franchise agreement that attempt to impose such restrictions are void and unenforceable in Washington.