How might RCW 19.100.180 affect the Crave Cookies franchise agreement in Washington?
Crave_Cookies Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.
RCW 19.100.180 may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise. There may also be court decisions which may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise.
In any litigation or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington, the litigation or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the litigation or mediation, or as determined by the court or mediator at the time of litigation 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.
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). In addition, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an independent contractor of a franchisee under RCW 49.62.030 unless the independent contractor's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed $250,000 per year (an amount that will be adjusted annually for inflation). As a result, any provisions contained in the franchise agreement or elsewhere that conflict with these limitations are void and unenforceable in Washington.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–194)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Crave Cookies's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, RCW 19.100.180, a section of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, may supersede the franchise agreement between Crave Cookies and its franchisees in Washington. This means that certain provisions of the franchise agreement may not be enforceable if they conflict with the state law. Specifically, the FDD mentions that RCW 19.100.180 could impact areas such as termination and renewal of the franchise agreement. Additionally, court decisions in Washington may also take precedence over the franchise agreement in these areas.
To ensure compliance with Washington law, Crave Cookies includes a Washington Franchise Disclosure Document and Franchise Agreement Addendum. This addendum states that in the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW, will take precedence. This addendum also clarifies that certain statements, questionnaires, or acknowledgments signed by the franchisee cannot waive claims under state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on statements made by Crave Cookies. This provision overrides any conflicting terms in other documents related to the franchise agreement.
Furthermore, the FDD specifies that general releases signed by franchisees do not apply to claims arising under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, RCW 19.100, and its associated rules. This ensures that franchisees retain their rights under Washington law, even after signing a general release. The litigation or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the litigation or mediation, or as determined by the court or mediator at the time of litigation 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.
In addition, the FDD states that noncompetition covenants are 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). Also, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an independent contractor of a franchisee unless the independent contractor's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed $250,000 per year (an amount that will be adjusted annually for inflation).