Thinking Outside the State: The Dormant Commerce Clause and Its Impact on State Relationship Laws

Twenty-four states have enacted at least one statute regulating the relationship between franchisors and franchisees (State Relationship Laws).1 Suchlaws are intended to protect franchisees because the investments that theymake in a specific franchise or product line make them particularly vulnerable to the franchisor. When a franchisee makes an investment in a particularbrand by establishing a physical presence in a state for the purpose of conducting local business and servicing local citizens, the scope and applicationof the State Relationship Law is relatively straightforward.

Fair and Reasonable Pricing—The Impact of Money Mailer v. Brewer

On September 19, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Money Mailer, LLC v. Brewer, 1 addressing years of ambiguity regarding a central component of Washington’s Franchise Investment Protection Act (FIPA or the Act)— fair and reasonable pricing. 2 At the same time however, the Court’s decision stirred an entirely new discussion around how franchisees and franchisors will move forward under the ruling.

Introduction to Franchise Law in Israel

Israel has not regulated the legalrelationship between a franchisorand a franchisee through specificlegislation, and so Israel does nothave an American-style franchisedisclosure law that requires franchisors to furnish a franchise disclosuredocument to potential franchisees.In the absence of specific legislation,the normative framework applicablein Israel to franchisor-franchisee relationships is based chiefly on generalcontract laws and rulings handed down by the courts regarding franchiseagreements

From the Editor-in-Chief