Is the provision requiring application of Pennsylvania law in the Dryject Franchise Agreement enforceable under California law?

According to Dryject's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the provision in Section 48 of the Franchise Agreement that requires application of Pennsylvania law may not be enforceable under California law. This is explicitly stated in the California Rider to the Dryject Management, LLC Franchise Agreement. This means that if there is a dispute between Dryject and a franchisee operating in California, a California court may not automatically apply Pennsylvania law as dictated by the franchise agreement. Instead, California law may take precedence.

This determination is crucial for prospective Dryject franchisees in California because it means that certain aspects of the franchise agreement could be interpreted and enforced differently than if the franchise were located in Pennsylvania or another state. California has specific franchise laws that are designed to protect franchisees, and these laws may override the provisions of the franchise agreement that conflict with them. For example, California law may offer more protection regarding termination, transfer, or non-renewal of the franchise agreement.

Prospective franchisees should seek legal counsel to fully understand the implications of this clause and how California law may affect their rights and obligations under the Dryject Franchise Agreement. It is important to be aware that Dryject reserves the right to challenge the constitutionality of any state law that declares void or unenforceable any provision contained in the Dryject Management, LLC Franchise Agreement.