Can Expense Reduction Analysts require a franchisee to assent to a release that deprives them of rights and protections?

According to Expense Reduction Analysts' 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the enforceability of release agreements that waive a franchisee's rights and protections varies by state. In general, a franchisor cannot require a franchisee to sign a release that deprives them of their rights and protections under franchise laws. However, the specific regulations differ by jurisdiction.

For instance, in California, any provision in a Franchise Agreement that requires a franchisee to waive their rights under the California Franchise Relations Act and the Franchise Investment Law is void. Any release of claims that Expense Reduction Analysts asks a franchisee to sign must specifically exclude claims under these franchise laws. Similarly, Minnesota law prohibits Expense Reduction Analysts from requiring a franchisee to assent to a general release, ensuring that any required release excludes claims arising under the Minnesota Franchise Law.

In Maryland, any general release required as a condition of renewal, sale, or transfer cannot apply to liabilities under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. Furthermore, representations requiring prospective franchisees to assent to a release, estoppel, or waiver of liability will not act as a release, estoppel, or waiver of any liability incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. North Dakota also revises its franchise agreement to omit any requirement that a general release be signed as a condition of renewal. These state-specific addenda highlight the importance of franchisees understanding the specific protections afforded to them by their state's franchise laws.