BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 525 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS Susan Bonilla, Chair AB 525 (Holden and Atkins) - As Amended April 6, 2015 NOTE: This bill is double-referred, having been previously heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 21st, 2015 and approved on a 7-2 vote. SUBJECT: Franchise relations: renewal and termination. SUMMARY: Revises the rights and responsibilities of franchisors and franchisees as outlined in the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA), which governs the renewal and termination of franchise agreements. EXISTING LAW: 1)Establishes the CRFA, which: a) Defines a franchise as a contract between two or more persons by which: (Business & Professions Code (BPC) § 20001) i) A franchisee is granted the right to offer, sell or distribute goods or services under the plan or system of the franchisor; AB 525 Page 2 ii) Operation of the business is substantially associated with franchisor's trademark, advertising or other symbol; and, iii) A franchise fee is paid by the franchisee. b) Excludes from the definition of a franchise those governed by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act; lease departments, licenses, or concessions at or with a general merchandise retail establishment; and, a cooperatively operated nonprofit organization; (BPC § 20001) c) Provides that any condition, stipulation or provision waiving compliance with the CFRA is contrary to public policy and void; (BPC § 20010) d) Prohibits termination of a franchise agreement prior to the end of the term, except for good cause, which includes failure to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after written notice and a reasonable opportunity (no more than 30 days) to cure; (BPC § 20020) e) Authorizes the immediate termination of a franchise agreement without notice or an opportunity to cure in cases of bankruptcy, abandonment, mutual agreement, material misrepresentation, failure to comply with the law after notice, repeated noncompliance after cure, seizure of the premises by a governmental entity or creditor, conviction of a felony or relevant misdemeanor, failure to pay franchisee fees within five days of overdue notice, and imminent danger to public health or safety; (BPC 20021) f) Requires a franchisor to notify the franchisee of its intention not to renew a contract at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the franchise in specified circumstances, during which time the franchisee may attempt to find a buyer acceptable to the franchisor; and, (BPC 20025) g) Requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew AB 525 Page 3 a franchise without complying with the CFRA to offer to repurchase the franchisee's resalable current inventory at the lower of the fair wholesale market value or the price paid by the franchisee. (BPC 20035) 2)Establishes the California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL), which: a) Makes it a violation of the CFIL for any franchisor, directly or indirectly, through any officer, agent or employee, to restrict or inhibit the right of franchisees to join a trade association or to prohibit the right of free association among franchisees for any lawful purposes; (Corporations Code (CORP) § 31220) b) Provides that any person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of specified sections of the CFIL or in violation of any provision that provides an exemption from the requirements of the CFIL, as specified, shall be liable to the franchisee or sub-franchisor, who may sue for damages caused thereby, and if the violation is willful, the franchisee may also sue for rescission, unless, in specified cases, the defendant proves that the plaintiff knew the facts concerning the untruth or omission, or that the defendant exercised reasonable care and did not know, or, if he or she had exercised reasonable care, would not have known, of the untruth or omission; (CORP § 31300) c) Allows any person who violates the right to free association to be sued in the superior court in the county in which the defendant resides or where a franchise affected by the violation does business, for temporary and permanent injunctive relief and for damages, if any, and the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Further provides that a plaintiff shall not be required to allege or prove that actual damages have been suffered in order to obtain injunctive relief; (CORP § 31302.5) d) Prohibits an action from being maintained to enforce any liability for violation of the right of free association AB 525 Page 4 unless it is brought within two years after the violation upon which it is based or within one year after the discovery by the plaintiff of the facts constituting such violation, whichever occurs first; and, (CORP § 31302.5) e) Except as explicitly provided, prohibits civil liability in favor of any private party against any person by implication from or as a result of the violation of any provision of CFIL or any rule or order thereunder. (CORP § 31306) THIS BILL: 1)Provides that if a franchisor terminates a franchise for good cause, good cause is limited to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice at least 60 days in advance, and increases from 30 to at least 60 days the amount of time to cure the failure. 2)Deletes existing requirements specifying when a franchisor may fail to renew a franchise and instead prohibits a franchisor from failing to renew a franchise agreement unless the franchisee has failed to substantially comply with the franchise agreement. 3)Allows a franchisee to have the opportunity to monetize any equity the franchisee may have developed in the franchise business prior to the termination of the franchise agreement. 4)Allows a franchisee in substantial compliance to renew for the AB 525 Page 5 same duration as provided in the expiring franchise agreement and would require the renewal to be under the franchise agreement terms that are being offered to new franchises. 5)Requires a franchisor that has grounds not to renew a franchise to provide written notice of its intention not to renew at least 180 days prior to the termination of the existing franchise agreement. 6)Makes it unlawful for a franchise agreement to prevent a franchisee from selling or transferring a franchise or a part of an interest of a franchise to another person, except as specified. 7)Requires a franchisee to notify the franchisor of its decision to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise, as specified, and requires the franchisor to notify the franchisee of the approval or disapproval of the sale, assignment, or transfer of the franchise within 60 days, as specified. 8)Requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to allow the renewal, sale, assignment, or transfer of a franchise other than in accordance with these provisions to reinstate the franchisee under the same terms as the existing franchise agreement and to pay all damages caused thereby, as specified. 9)Makes clarifying changes. FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: AB 525 Page 6 10)Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the Coalition of Franchisee Associations . According to the author, "The California Franchise Relations Act provides franchisee's fewer rights than nearly every other form of contract law in California, especially as it pertains to termination, breach and damages. Franchise agreements are frequently one-sided contracts that strongly favor the franchisor over the small business owners who operate franchises. AB 525 restores fairness to franchise agreements by applying traditional contract law standards, giving franchisees the right to transfer the business, ensuring franchisees can recover their equity when a franchise relationship ends, all while protecting the franchisor's rights to terminate the worst actors, including those who break laws, cannot make required payments or operate in direct defiance of the contract terms." 11)Background. According to the International Franchise Association, "[a] franchise is the agreement or license between two legally independent parties which gives a person or group of people (the franchisee) the right to market a product or service using the trademark or trade name of another business (the franchisor)." It also gives the franchisee the right to market a product or service using the operating methods of the franchisor and the obligation to pay the franchisor fees for those rights. The franchisor has the obligation to provide those rights and support the franchisee according to their agreement. More specifically, franchisees serve to provide the look, name recognition, and brand of the business. The franchisee builds the brand locally and develops good will within the community. The franchisee's business success helps support the community with taxes and other contributions as well as improves the bottom line for franchisors. Franchisees employ hundreds of thousands of workers across the state. AB 525 Page 7 The franchise agreement contract is the central authority for the relationship between the franchisor and franchisee, which can be hundreds of pages long and contains a highly detailed description of the rights, responsibilities and remedies of the parties. Current Law Regulating the Franchisor/Franchisee Relationship. A substantial part of California franchise law is largely embodied in CFIL and CFRA, although certain specific industries (i.e., auto dealers and filling stations) have their own unique provisions as well. CFIL was enacted in 1970 to regulate franchise investment opportunities in order to protect California investors from potentially fraudulent franchise investments. The CFIL generally requires franchisors to disclose to prospective franchisees the information necessary to make an informed decision about franchise offers, and prohibits the sale of franchises that would lead to fraud or the likelihood that a franchisor's promises would not be fulfilled. The CFIL contains explicit provisions for enforcement generally through damages (payment for economic losses) and rescission (cancellation of the contract). It also provides for injunctive relief (to require or prohibit a specific action), and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in certain circumstances. The CFRA (which excludes petroleum-related franchises, like gas stations) was enacted in 1980 to govern relationships between franchisors and franchisees after they have entered into contract with each other. The CFRA is designed to prevent unfair practices in the transfer, renewal or termination of a franchise. The CFRA prohibits termination of a franchise agreement except for good cause and only after notice and an opportunity to fix the problem. It also lays out certain circumstances where immediate termination is permitted, for example: bankruptcy, abandonment, mutual agreement, material misrepresentation, illegal activity, non-compliance with the franchise agreement, failure to pay franchise fees and AB 525 Page 8 imminent danger to the public. The CFRA prohibits non-renewal of a franchise agreement without 180 days prior notice, and with certain additional protections for the franchisee. It also provides for the transfer of ownership to surviving spouses or heirs. The CFRA does not contain explicit enforcement provisions except for the buyback of inventory when a franchise is improperly terminated or non-renewed, although general contract remedies may still be available. The Balance of Power Between Franchisors and Franchisees. Supporters of this bill argue that there is both a systemic problem (a basic imbalance in bargaining power between the franchisor and the franchisee), and a host of specific abuses of that power which make this bill necessary. An oft-cited 1996 court decision by the California Court of Appeal (2nd Dist.) describes the franchise dynamic this way: The relationship between franchisor and franchisee is characterized by a prevailing, although not universal, inequality of economic resources between the contracting parties. Franchisees typically, but not always, are small businessmen or businesswomen or people seeking to make the transition from being wage earners and for whom the franchise is their very first business. Franchisors typically, but not always, are large corporations. The agreements themselves tend to reflect this gross bargaining disparity. Usually they are from contracts the franchisor prepared and offered to franchisees on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. (Emerson, Franchising and the Collective Rights of Franchisees (1990) 43 V and L. Rev. 1503, 1509 & fn. 21.) . . . Some courts and commentators have stressed the bargaining disparity between franchisors and franchisees is so great that franchise agreements exhibit many of the attributes of an adhesion contract and some of the terms of those contracts may be unconscionable. Postal Instant Press v. Sealy, 43 Cal. App. 4th 1704, 1715-1717 (1996.) AB 525 Page 9 Opponents of this measure will cite that existing laws protect the franchisor/franchisee relationship making the bill unnecessary. Further, they argue that this measure would put in jeopardy existing contracts and would create a number of unprofitable situations for both the franchisor and franchisee. They also believe that if this measure is enacted, a number of franchisors will look to other states to expand their brands. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Coalition of Franchisee Associations , the bill's sponsor, writes in its letter of support, "Our members work hard to make their franchises a success and want franchisors to shut down bad franchisees that damage the brand. However, we believe this can be accomplished without forfeiting our right to operate." The California Labor Federation writes in support, "AB 525 will impact over 83,000 franchised establishments that employ more than 925,700 workers in California. Fast food restaurants are the biggest employers in the franchise sector, and fast food workers and franchisees, mostly small-business people, share a common problem - the unchecked power of big corporations." The Service Employees International Union supports the bill and writes, "These provisions are significant steps toward rebalancing the relationship between franchisors and franchisees. Prohibiting unfair terminations and non-renewals ensures that franchisees who play by the rules have the opportunity to thrive, while still providing franchisors with AB 525 Page 10 authority to terminate or not renew franchisees who don't meet franchise standards. Protecting franchisees' rights to transfer their business means that franchisees can pass their franchise on to their children or sell it can reap the reward of their labor and investment." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The International Franchise Association opposes the bill and writes, "AB 525 is unnecessary. California already regulates franchise disclosure above and beyond the requirements established by the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule to provide consumers with protections about the investments they feely enter into under the CFIL. Additionally, California regulates certain terms of the relationship between franchisor and franchisee under the Franchise Relations Act. If adopted, AB 525 would make it extremely difficult for existing franchise systems to conduct business in California, rendering the state an unattractive place to open a new franchise business." AMENDMENTS: In order to clarify definitions within the bill and provide protections for the franchisee, the following amendments should be made by the author: 1)Strike BPC § 20025, page 7, lines 7-22 inclusive. 2)In order to clarify exactly when the 60 day timeline begins, the following amendment should be made to BPC § 20020: Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, no franchisor may terminate a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause. Good cause shall be limited to the AB 525 Page 11 failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice at least 60 days in advance thereof and a reasonable opportunity, which in no event shall be less than 60 days from the date of the notice of non-compliance, to cure the failure 3)The author should amend BPC § 20022 as follows: In order to better specify the ability for the franchisee to monetize any equity in the business should the franchisor not provide an opportunity for the franchisee's contract to be renewed, the author should make the following amendment on page 5, line19: (a) While not transferring any equity in the franchisor's intellectual property to the franchisee, a franchisee shall have the opportunity to monetize any equity the franchisee may have developed in the franchised business prior to the termination or non-renewal of the franchise agreement. The author should include the following amendment in order to more clearly define equity and specify that the appraiser is a mutually agreed upon third party: (b)(1) For the purpose of this section, "equity" shall mean the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets, on the date of the notice of termination or non-renewal, of all investments in the franchise made by the franchisee, including but not limited to improvements to or purchases of real property, equipment, inventory, advertising, and real estate, as determined by a mutually agreed upon appraiser of business value. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), equity shall not include any initial franchise fees paid by the franchisee. AB 525 Page 12 Add the following language in order to ensure that a franchisee would not be able to file suit to seek additional remedies if the franchise is sold by a franchisee before the franchise relationship is terminated. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), should the franchisee sell, transfer or assign any franchise assets before a valuation is made, the sale price shall be deemed the monetized value of the equity of that franchise asset. The following amendment should be made in order to ensure that the worst acting franchisees are not entitled to monetize any equity in their business. (d) This section shall not apply to any franchisee terminated pursuant to Business and Professions Code §20021. 1)In order to ensure that the standards set for one franchisee's request to sell his/her franchise is not arbitrary and punitive compared to standards imposed on another franchisee, the author should make the following amendment to BPC § 20028, page 7, lines 30-33: (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a franchisee shall not have the right to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise, or any right thereunder, without the written consent of the franchisor, except that consent shall not be withheld unless the transferee does not meet the then-existing and reasonable standards for new franchisees, as defined in subdivision (a).unreasonably withheld.2)In order to clarify that the finder of fact does not have to be a judge and jury, but can also be an arbitrator, as specified in the franchise agreement, the author should amend AB 525 Page 13 BPC § 20029, page 8, line 32, as follows: (3) The finder of fact may include an arbitrator as specified in the franchise agreement and agreed upon pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 20040. 3)In order to clarify that the finder of fact does not have to be a judge and jury, but can also be an arbitrator, as specified in the franchise agreement, the author should amend BPC § 20041 as follows: (a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply only to franchises granted or renewed on or after January 1, 2016January 1, 1981or to franchises of an indefinite duration which may be terminated by the franchisee or franchisor without cause. (b) Any franchises granted before January 1, 2016 shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter in effect at the time the franchise was granted or renewed. REGISTERED SUPPORT: Coalition of Franchisee Associations (sponsor) California Fair Franchise Association California Labor Federation Service Employees International Union Independent Organization of Little Caesars Franchisees AB 525 Page 14 Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors Association of California Slater Associates Small Business California Small Business Majority 3 individuals REGISTERED OPPOSITION: International Franchise Association Analysis Prepared by:Le Ondra Clark Harvey, Ph.D. / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301