Is the choice of forum for Bft litigation subject to state law?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
herwise required by North Dakota law, and except for the U.S. Trademark Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, other federal laws, and disputes involving non-competition covenants (which are governed by the law of the state in which your Studio is located), California law applies.
RHODE ISLAND
- The following language is added to the end of the "Summary" sections of Item 17.v, entitled Choice of forum, and 17.w, entitled Choice of law:
Section 19-28.1-14 of the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act provides that "A provision in a franchise agreement restricting jurisdiction or venue to a forum outside this state or requiring the application of the laws of another state is void with respect to a claim otherwise enforceable under this Act. To the extent required by applicable law Rhode Island law will apply to claims arising under the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act."
VIRGINIA
- The following language is added to the end of the "Summary" section of Item 17.e, entitled Termination by franchisor without cause:
Pursuant to Section 13.1-564 of the Virginia Retail Franchising Act, it is unlawful for a franchisor to cancel a franchise without reasonable cause. If any grounds for default or termination stated in the Multi-Unit Agreement or Franchise Agreement does not constitute "reasonable cause," as that term may be defined in the Virginia Retail Franchising Act or the laws of Virginia, that provision may not be enforceable.
WASHINGTON
-
- No statement, questionnaire, or acknowledgment signed or agreed to by a franchisee in connection with the commencement of the franchise relationship shall have the effect of (i) waiving any claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or (ii) disclaiming reliance on any statement made by any franchisor, franchise seller, or other person acting on behalf of the franchisor.
Source: Item 17 — RENEWAL, TERMINATION, TRANSFER AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FDD pages 57–66)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the choice of forum for litigation is subject to state law. For instance, Rhode Island's Franchise Investment Act stipulates that any franchise agreement provision restricting jurisdiction or venue to a forum outside of Rhode Island, or requiring the application of another state's laws, is void with respect to claims enforceable under that Act. Similarly, North Dakota requires that, to the extent mandated by its Franchise Investment Law, a franchisee may bring an action in North Dakota, notwithstanding Bft's preferred forum.
These state-specific addenda indicate that Bft franchisees may have the right to pursue legal claims in their home state, regardless of what the franchise agreement stipulates regarding choice of forum. This is particularly relevant for franchisees in states with franchise-specific laws designed to protect their interests. The FDD also states that no statement signed by a franchisee can waive claims under applicable state franchise law for franchisees in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, or Wisconsin.
For a prospective Bft franchisee, this means the standard forum selection clause in the franchise agreement may not be strictly enforceable depending on the state in which they operate. They should consult with an attorney to understand their rights under local franchise laws, especially concerning dispute resolution and choice of forum. This is a critical consideration, as it can significantly impact the cost and convenience of resolving disputes with Bft.