State Committee takes a first look at the "Mobile" Franchise Bill

no picture

Bill A2491, which was originally filed in March 2008, was “introduced” on Thursday October 23, 2008 and then referred to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Friday October 24, 2008.  It will likely have a “second reading” before proceeding in the substantive legislative process. 

 

Members of the International Franchise Association gave a thorough argument against the bill, despite some tough questioning by the Committee members. I also gave some brief testimony on the technical aspects of the proposed bill. The fight against this bill is just beginning – and since passage of this bill could have a chilling effect on all types of franchising in New Jersey – this is a fight the franchising community needs to win.

 

"Mobile Franchise" Act Moves One Step Closer to Passage

no picture

The “Mobile Franchise” Act has been scheduled for a legislative session on October 23, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. The session will take place in front of the Commerce and Economic Development Committee, Room 9 on the Third Floor of the State House Annex located in Trenton, New Jersey.

 

As I mentioned in a previous blog post:

House Bill 2491 and Senate Bill 1539 of the New Jersey Legislature seek to expand the type of franchises, which are subject to the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. In general, the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act currently applies to franchises where: 1) the franchisor has granted the franchisee a license, mark, trade name, etc.; 2) there is a “community of interest” in the marketing of goods and services; 3) where the franchisee has established or maintains a “place of business” in New Jersey; 4) where the gross sales between franchisor and franchisee are more than $35,000 in the prior year; and 5) more than 20% of the franchisee’s sales are derived from the franchise. The proposed change in the statute would apply the provisions of the Franchise Practices Act to “mobile” franchises, in other words, franchises that do not have a brick and mortar location. Under the proposed Bill, a “place of business” would include a location where the franchisee “displays for sale or at which or from which the franchisee sells the franchisor goods.” This would include an office or warehouse from which franchisee personnel visit or call upon customers or, perhaps more importantly from which the franchisor’s goods are delivered to customers.

Vermont House Bill Which Would Have Rendered Non-Competes Unenforceable Does Not Pass

no picture

In a previous blog post I discussed House Bill 790 in Vermont which would have had a substantial negative impact upon franchising in Vermont.  It would essentially void non-compete provisions in franchise agreements. 

The Bill apparently languished in committee through the end of the May session, which effectively kills it for the time being.  The danger of such bills is that they tend to leach into “sister” states.  The demise of the Vermont Bill is a positive development for franchisors and helps strengthen the franchise community in general because it protects the general integrity of franchise systems.

 

NJ Legislature to Consider Applying the Franchise Practices Act to "Mobile" Franchises

no picture
House Bill 2491 and Senate Bill 1539 of the New Jersey Legislature seek to expand the type of franchises, which are subject to the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. In general, the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act currently applies to franchises where: 1) the franchisor has granted the franchisee a license, mark, trade name, etc.; 2) there is a “community of interest” in the marketing of goods and services; 3) where the franchisee has established or maintains a “place of business” in New Jersey; 4) where the gross sales between franchisor and franchisee are more than $35,000 in the prior year; and 5) more than 20% of the franchisee’s sales are derived from the franchise. The proposed change in the statute would apply the provisions of the Franchise Practices Act to “mobile” franchises, in other words, franchises that do not have a brick and mortar location. Under the proposed Bill, a “place of business” would include a location where the franchisee “displays for sale or at which or from which the franchisee sells the franchisor goods.” This would include an office or warehouse from which franchisee personnel visit or call upon customers or, perhaps more importantly from which the franchisor’s goods are delivered to customers.


Potentially more significant than the proposed changes to the definition of “place of business” is the additional language that the Bill would tack on to the “general purpose” section of the Franchise Practices Act. The proposed Bill would add the following language:

“…and to protect franchisees from unreasonable termination by franchisors that may result from a disparity of bargaining power between national and regional franchisors and small franchisees. The legislature finds that these protections are necessary to protect not only retail businesses, but also wholesale distribution franchisees that “through their efforts” enhance the reputation and goodwill of franchisors in this State. Further, the legislature declares that the courts have in some cases more narrowly construed the Franchise Practices Act then was intended by the legislature”.


This additional language should concern franchisors doing business in New Jersey, since it is unnecessary to achieve the expansion to the “place of business” definition that is the focus of the Bill. This tougher language may indicate that there are further changes to the statute being considered. Certainly, the inclusion of the proposed language would be used as a justification by judges to give much broader application to the Act than has been the case in years past.


The two Bills are currently in the initial stage of the legislative process, and will probably not be acted upon until May or June of this year. The current sponsors of the two Bills are Assemblyman Joseph Cryan – District 20 (Union County) and Senator Bob Smith – District 17 (Middlesex and Somerset Counties). The legislation was introduced in the House on March 10, 2008, and in the Senate of March 17, 2008.

Vermont Legislature Introduces Legislation That May Render Non-Compete Provisions in Franchise Agreements

no picture
The Vermont legislature introduced House Bill No. 790 on February 1, 2008.  The Bill would render non-compete provisions of franchise agreements void unless the franchisor can prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the franchise agreement is:  (1) consistent with public policy; (2) necessary to protect the franchisor; (3) not a contract of adhesion; and (4) reasonable considering the subject matter and conditions.  Clearly the third requirement is problematic. 


A “contract of adhesion” is legal-speak for “non-negotiable” and is “take-it-or-leave-it” in nature.  Most franchise agreements are non-negotiable because it is important for the system to maintain uniform and consistent standards.  However, various courts have deemed franchise agreements to be contracts of adhesion because of the superior bargaining power of the franchisor.  Since most franchise agreements are contracts of adhesion, and if this Bill passes, it will be extraordinarily difficult for franchisors to enforce non-competition agreements among franchisees in Vermont. 


One can only hope that this idea does not spread beyond the borders of the Green Mountain State.    Vermont’s legislature appears intent of following this strange course of action, which is out of step with the other states.  Watch this log for more updates.

Coordinated Review Program Indefinitely Suspended

no picture
Franchisors and their counsel are not the only ones scrambling to digest the intricacies of the revised FTC Rule. Citing the challenges in examiners having to learn a new disclosure format, the franchise coordinated review program has been suspended indefinitely.  The suspension went into effect on July 31, 2007. 

The coordinated review program was adopted to streamline the franchise registration process.  It provided franchisors with the ability to simultaneously register their franchise offering in two or more participating states.  A lead examiner would then be assigned to coordinate and oversee the registration process among the states.  Prior to the suspension, 11 states participated in the program. 

The future of the coordinated review program is not known.  However, state administrators plan to re-evaluate the program after July 1, 2008, when the new disclosure format becomes mandatory and examiners will no longer have to review disclosures under both the new and old formats.  

Congress Considering Legislation That Would Render Arbitration Clauses in Franchise Agreements Unenforceable

no picture
Last month, a House bill known as H.R. 3010 and Senate Bill 1782 (both generally known as the “Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007”) started moving through the judiciary committees on their way to further action by Congress.    These bills would seek, among other things, to void all arbitration agreements related to franchise disputes.  A “franchise dispute” is defined in both bills to include disputes regarding franchise sales, operations, and even the franchise fee itself.   These bills are an attempt by legislators to circumvent established case law that have uniformly enforced arbitration agreements in the areas of employee disputes and consumer purchases.  

The impact of this legislation is considerable.   New Jersey courts, like several other states, have held that franchise agreement provisions providing for out-of-state arbitrations are enforceable.  See Allen v. World Inspection Network, Int’l, Inc., 389 N.J.Super.115, 911 A.2d 484 (App. Div. 2006).  Previously, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that forum-selection clauses in franchise agreements are presumptively invalid, and should not be enforced. Kubis & Perszyk Assocs. v. Sun Microsystems, 146 N.J. 176 (1996).  However, New Jersey courts (as in other states) have distinguished arbitration provisions from other forum selection clauses under the rational that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state franchise laws.   This legislation would effectively negate the rational applied by the Allen court, as well as other courts throughout the country. 
 
While not much will occur during the remainder of August due to Congress’ summer break, these bills will be moving through the respective Committees at the beginning of September.

The Franchisor Community Dodges Another Legislative Bullet

no picture

The deceptively titled “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007” has been defeated in Congress.  The Act, which would have allowed for, among other things, “card voting” by employees to establish a union (in lieu of an actual, verifiable vote) posed a significant risk to the franchisor community. 

Although strong union interests quickly moved the bill through the House in the Spring, bi-partisan action has effectively defeated the Bill.  Although this is good news for franchisors, the franchisor community needs to watch for any attempts to revive this defeated legislation over the next year leading up to the presidential election campaign.

Long-Delayed Revisions for Franchise Regs: Many Inconsistencies Between Federal and States' Disclosure Requirements Eliminated

no picture
Adam J. Sieglheim, member of Stark & Stark's Franchise group, authored the article, Long-Delayed Revisions for Franchise Regs: Many Inconsistencies Between Federal and States' Disclosure Requirements Eliminated for the June 25 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal.

The article discusses the Federal Trade Commission's announcement of substantial revisions to its franchise disclosure requirements.

You can read the full article here.

Leveling the Playing Field in Franchising

no picture

Adam J. Siegelheim, a member of the Franchise Law group, authored Franchise Fairness for the July 31edition of the New Jersey Law Journal, Corporate Law Supplement.  The article discusses the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, which was designed to address the disparity in bargaining power between franchisors and franchisees.

You can read the article here.

Older Entries

June 1, 2006 — Consider State Laws When Starting a Franchise