Does Byrider consider the covenants not to compete in the franchise agreement fair and reasonable?

According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, Byrider considers the covenants not to compete set forth in the agreement fair and reasonable. Byrider states that these covenants will not impose undue hardship on the franchisee. This is because Byrider believes franchisees possess other skills, experience, and education that allow them to earn income from other endeavors.

This acknowledgement indicates that Byrider believes the non-compete clauses are necessary to protect its business interests without unduly restricting a franchisee's ability to earn a living after the franchise relationship ends. However, prospective franchisees should carefully review the specific terms of the non-compete clauses with their own legal advisors to assess their potential impact.

It's important to note that the enforceability of non-compete agreements can vary by state. For example, the FDD states that in North Dakota, covenants not to compete upon termination or expiration of the Franchise Agreement are generally unenforceable except in certain instances as provided by law; however, Byrider and the franchisee will enforce the covenants to the maximum extent the law allows. Similarly, in California, these provisions may not be enforceable under California law. Therefore, franchisees need to understand how local laws affect the enforceability of these covenants.