What restrictions on rights or remedies are unenforceable for Cool Binz franchises in Washington?
Cool_Binz Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
e of the arbitration or mediation, or as determined by the arbitrator or mediator at the time of arbitration or mediation. In addition, if litigation is not precluded by the franchise agreement, a franchisee may bring an action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the sale of franchises, or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, in Washington.
-
- A release 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. Accordingly, Items 17(c) and Item 17(m) of the FDD, and required by Sections 10.B.8 and 11.C of the Franchise Agreement, does not apply to claims arising under the Franchise Investment Protection Act, chapter 19.100 RCW, or any rules or order adopted thereunder, in accordance with RCW 19.100.220(2).
-
- Transfer fees are collectable only to the extent that they compensate the franchisor for expenses directly incurred as a result of 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).
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 63–238)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Cool Binz's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, several restrictions on rights and remedies are unenforceable for franchises operating in Washington state. A franchisee cannot waive their rights under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act unless the waiver is part of a negotiated settlement with independent legal representation after the franchise agreement is already in effect. Additionally, any provisions that unreasonably limit the statute of limitations for claims or restrict rights to remedies like a jury trial under the Act may not be enforced. These stipulations protect franchisees from unknowingly or unfairly relinquishing their legal protections under Washington law.
The FDD also states that non-competition covenants have limitations. Per RCW 49.62.020, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against a Cool Binz employee, including a franchisee's employee, if their annualized earnings from the enforcing party do not exceed $100,000, which is adjusted annually for inflation. Similarly, RCW 49.62.030 makes noncompetition covenants unenforceable against an independent contractor of a franchisee if their annualized earnings from the enforcing party do not exceed $250,000, also adjusted for inflation. Any conflicting provisions in the Franchise Agreement are void and unenforceable in Washington.
Furthermore, Cool Binz is prohibited from restricting a franchisee from soliciting or hiring employees of either another Cool Binz franchisee or the franchisor itself, as per RCW 49.62.060. Any clauses within the franchise agreement that attempt to prevent such solicitation or hiring are unenforceable in Washington. These regulations aim to promote fair labor practices and prevent undue restrictions on employees' career mobility within the Cool Binz franchise network.