In the event of conflicting laws, which law prevails for Itan franchises?

According to Itan's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the governing law for the franchise agreement is generally the Laws of California, excluding any California laws regulating franchise sales or franchisor-franchisee relationships unless jurisdictional requirements are met independently. However, an exception exists for salons located outside of California, where the public policies of the state in which the salon is located govern the enforceability of noncompetition covenants. Furthermore, for franchises in Washington, the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW, takes precedence in the event of a conflict of laws.

For a prospective Itan franchisee, this means that while the franchise agreement is typically interpreted under California law, there are specific instances where other laws may override this. If the Itan salon is located outside of California, the enforceability of noncompetition agreements will be subject to the public policies of that state. In Washington, the state's Franchise Investment Protection Act will prevail over conflicting provisions in the franchise agreement.

This is a critical consideration for franchisees as it directly impacts their rights and obligations. For example, the ability to enforce a non-compete clause could vary significantly depending on the state where the salon is located. Similarly, in Washington, the franchisee benefits from the stronger protections afforded by the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, particularly concerning termination and renewal rights. Franchisees should consult with legal counsel to understand how these provisions apply to their specific circumstances and location.