Washington-state based franchisees Greg and Gabriela Skistimas brought suit against Hotworx Franchising LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging misleading and unfair practices related to franchise disclosure and marketing in connection with the sale of HOTWORX sauna and fitness studio. The plaintiffs claimed that Hotworx misrepresented potential profits, failed to provide accurate information on franchise earnings, and breached its obligations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Franchise Rule and Washington State’s franchise laws. They argued that Hotworx’s omissions and misstatements induced them into franchise agreements that did not deliver the promised financial returns.

The defendants challenged whether the district court in Washington had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and moved to compel arbitration. The Court found it had personal jurisdiction over Hotworx employees who had direct involvement as franchise sales brokers in the state. One such broker-employee, Patricia Gattuso, signed an agreement acknowledging the jurisdiction of Washington for disputes arising from franchise sales, which further supported the Court’s authority to hear the case. The Court also denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause was not enforceable because it failed to meet Washington’s strict standards for arbitration agreements in franchise contexts.

Key takeaways from this case include:

Franchisor’s Employees Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Washington State. The case underscores the reach of state jurisdiction over out-of-state brokers when those brokers actively solicit and facilitate sales within the state. By consenting to Washington’s jurisdiction in franchise transactions, brokers such as Ms. Gattuso made themselves subject to legal proceedings in Washington, reinforcing that franchise brokers should be cautious of jurisdictional clauses.

Importance of Clear Franchise Disclosures. Hotworx’s alleged misrepresentations about profitability highlight the legal risks associated with insufficient or misleading earnings claims. Franchise businesses are obligated under FTC and state regulations to provide accurate disclosures, and violations can lead to significant legal repercussions.

Limits on Enforcing Arbitration Clauses. This page has previously examined the enforceability of arbitration clauses in franchise relationships. See our discussions here and here. The Skistimas decision reminds us that courts may not enforce arbitration clauses that appear inequitable or conflict with state protections for franchisees. Washington’s franchise laws impose higher standards on arbitration clauses, emphasizing that its courts prioritize fair dispute resolution processes in franchise relationships.

This case highlights the importance of thorough and transparent disclosures by franchisors and underscores how jurisdictional consent and enforceable arbitration clauses are critical in franchise law. Franchisors and brokers should carefully consider compliance with state-specific franchise laws to avoid similar disputes.