Does the Expense Reduction Analysts franchise agreement amendment require any specific actions by the franchisee?

According to the 2025 Expense Reduction Analysts FDD, franchisees in certain states must acknowledge and agree to be bound by the terms of addenda to the franchise agreement. For example, in Virginia, the addendum states that franchisees must acknowledge having read and understood the addendum and consent to its terms.

In North Dakota, the addendum modifies specific clauses in Item 17 of the Disclosure Document and sections of the Franchise Agreement to comply with North Dakota law. These modifications address issues such as general releases upon renewal, covenants not to compete, mediation or arbitration locations, choice of forum, and choice of law. Similarly, Minnesota law stipulates that certain provisions in the Franchise Agreement, such as those requiring litigation outside of Minnesota or waiving rights under Minnesota Statutes, may not reduce a franchisee's rights under Chapter 80C of the Minnesota Statutes.

In California, the addendum clarifies that if any provision in the Franchise Agreement is inconsistent with California law regarding termination, transfer, or non-renewal, the law will take precedence. It also addresses the enforceability of termination provisions related to bankruptcy and covenants not to compete. Furthermore, any release of claims requested by Expense Reduction Analysts must exclude claims under California franchise laws. These state-specific addenda ensure that the Expense Reduction Analysts franchise agreement complies with local regulations, and franchisees must understand and agree to these modifications.