Under the Cream franchise agreement, is the consent to jurisdiction provision subject to the obligation to arbitrate?

According to Cream's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the consent to jurisdiction provision is subject to the obligation to arbitrate. Specifically, any legal actions arising from the franchise agreement or the relationship between Cream and the franchisee must be initiated in the court closest to Cream's principal business location, which is currently Columbus, Ohio. However, this is explicitly "subject to the obligation to arbitrate".

This means that before a franchisee can pursue a lawsuit in court, they may be required to first attempt to resolve the dispute through arbitration, if the arbitration clause is invoked. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where a neutral third party hears both sides of a case and makes a decision, which can be binding or non-binding depending on the agreement.

For a prospective Cream franchisee, this implies that disputes with Cream may not immediately proceed to court. Instead, the franchisee might have to go through arbitration first, potentially saving time and money compared to traditional litigation. However, it also means giving up some of the rights associated with a court trial, such as a jury trial and certain appeal options. The FDD states that you and your owners agree that all actions arising under this Agreement or otherwise as a result of the relationship between you and us must be commenced in the court nearest to our or, as applicable, our successor's or assign's then-current principal place of business (currently, Columbus, Ohio), and you (and each owner) irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of that court and waive any objection you (or the owner) might have to either the jurisdiction of or venue in that court.