In Minnesota, is Burger King allowed to require litigation to be conducted outside of Minnesota, or require a developer to consent to liquidated damages, termination penalties, or judgment notes?

According to Burger King's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, Minnesota Statutes, Section 80C.21 and Minnesota Rule 2860.4400(J) explicitly prohibit Burger King from requiring litigation to be conducted outside of Minnesota. This protection extends to developers and franchisees, ensuring that legal disputes related to the franchise agreement are resolved within the state's jurisdiction. This provision is designed to protect the franchisee's rights and access to local legal remedies.

Furthermore, Burger King is also prohibited from requiring a developer or franchisee to consent to liquidated damages, termination penalties, or judgment notes in the state of Minnesota. This safeguards franchisees from potentially unfair or overreaching financial obligations imposed by the franchisor. These regulations ensure that the financial terms and conditions of the franchise agreement are fair and equitable under Minnesota law.

These protections are enshrined in amendments to the various agreements Burger King uses, including the Development Agreement, Target Reservation Agreement, and Franchise Agreement, specifically for franchises offered and sold in Minnesota. The amendments explicitly state that the Minnesota statutes and rules supersede any conflicting provisions in the standard agreements, reinforcing the franchisee's rights and remedies under Minnesota law. This ensures that franchisees operating in Minnesota are not subject to terms that would otherwise be permissible in other states but are prohibited in Minnesota to protect their interests.