Can Crave require arbitration or litigation to be conducted outside of the franchisee's state?
Crave Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
-
- Under Indiana Code 23-2-2.7-1 (10), jurisdiction and venue must be in Indiana if the franchisee so requests. This amends Article 19 of the Franchise Agreement and Section 19 of the Multi-Unit Development Agreement.
-
The appropriate sections of the Franchise Agreement are amended to permit a franchisee to bring a lawsuit in Maryland for claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.
- The following is added to the end of the "Summary" sections of Item 17(v), titled "Choice of forum", and Item 17(w), titled "Choice of law":
The foregoing choice of law should not be considered a waiver of any right conferred upon the franchisor or upon the franchisee by Article 33 of the General Business Law of the State of New York.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 63–253)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Crave's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the brand's ability to enforce out-of-state arbitration or litigation varies by state. For instance, an addendum for Indiana states that jurisdiction and venue must be in Indiana if the franchisee requests it. This amendment directly affects Article 19 of the Franchise Agreement and Section 19 of the Multi-Unit Development Agreement, ensuring that Indiana franchisees have the option to litigate within their home state. This protection is codified under Indiana Code 23-2-2.7-1 (10). Conversely, the FDD notes that there is some dispute as to whether the forum selection requirement is legally enforceable in Maryland, in light of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Maryland's addendum to the Franchise Agreement specifies that the appropriate sections are amended to allow a franchisee to bring a lawsuit in Maryland for claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. This indicates that Crave franchisees in Maryland have the right to litigate certain claims within their state. The addendum also includes a statement clarifying that any representations requiring prospective franchisees to agree to a release, estoppel, or waiver of liability do not apply to liabilities incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.
For New York, the addendum states that the choice of law should not be considered a waiver of any right conferred upon the franchisor or upon the franchisee by Article 33 of the General Business Law of the State of New York. This suggests that New York franchisees retain certain rights under state law, though the document does not explicitly address the location of arbitration or litigation. Prospective franchisees should be aware of these state-specific stipulations, as they can significantly impact their legal rights and obligations. It is advisable to consult with a legal professional to fully understand the implications of these clauses in their specific state.