Does the adoption of California law in the Bft franchise agreement intend to satisfy jurisdictional requirements related to franchise offers or sales?

According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchise agreement specifies that it is governed by California law, except where superseded by the Federal Arbitration Act, the Lanham Act, or other federal laws. However, Bft explicitly states that choosing California law is not meant to sidestep or fulfill any jurisdictional requirements related to franchise offers or sales that are specifically outlined in other laws. This means that while California law generally applies to the agreement, Bft must still comply with any franchise-specific regulations in the franchisee's state concerning the offer or sale of the franchise.

For a prospective Bft franchisee, this clause ensures that the selection of California law does not negate their rights or protections under their local state franchise laws. It clarifies that Bft must still adhere to the specific franchise regulations of the state where the franchise is offered or sold, providing an additional layer of security for the franchisee. This could include specific disclosure requirements, waiting periods, or other regulations designed to protect franchisees.

In practical terms, a franchisee should be aware that while the franchise agreement is generally governed by California law, their state's franchise laws still apply to the offer and sale of the franchise. Therefore, it is essential to understand the franchise laws in their own state and how they interact with the terms of the Bft franchise agreement. Franchisees should consult with legal counsel to ensure they are fully aware of their rights and obligations under both California law and their local state laws.