Is Section 17.H of the Sonesta Simply Suites Franchise Agreement still in effect?

According to the 2025 Sonesta Simply Suites FDD, Section 17.H of the Franchise Agreement, which likely pertains to consent to jurisdiction, is modified by state-specific addenda. For franchisees operating in Maryland, the following is added to the end of Section 17.H: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may bring an action in Maryland for claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law." This means that while the original section likely dictates a specific jurisdiction for legal actions, franchisees in Maryland retain the right to file claims under Maryland's franchise laws within the state.

Similarly, for franchisees in North Dakota, the following language is added to the end of Section 17.H of the Franchise Agreement: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent required by the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law, you may bring an action in North Dakota for claims arising under the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law." This addition ensures that North Dakota franchisees can pursue legal action within North Dakota for claims arising under the state's franchise investment law, overriding any potentially conflicting jurisdictional clauses in the original agreement to the extent required by North Dakota law.

These modifications are crucial for prospective Sonesta Simply Suites franchisees as they clarify their legal rights and options based on the state in which their franchise operates. The state-specific addenda ensure that franchisees are not unduly restricted from pursuing legal remedies available under their local franchise laws. Franchisees should carefully review these addenda to understand how they modify the original agreement and what rights they have in their specific state.