
A new bill introduced in the Oregon House of Representatives would make significant changes to the state’s franchise relationship statute, making the law dramatically more onerous for franchisors. Among the proposed revisions are:
- Mandatory disclosure of the financial performance or forecasted financial performance of existing franchises to any prospective franchisee;
- Significant new limits on waiving forum or venue in Oregon, including a limit on arbitration agreements that likely conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act;
- A 60 days’ notice and cure period when a franchisee fails to comply with a franchise agreement;
- A new cause of action for franchisees if a franchisor develops a new location “in close geographical proximity” to an existing location—a term that is not defined—and the existing franchisee suffers a “material adverse effect” in its business;
- Allowing double or treble damages if a franchisor acts “knowingly or willfully” in violating the statute; and
- Retroactive application of the new statutory sections.
These changes practically invite franchisees to initiate litigation should a dispute arise with a franchisor. What franchisee would not roll the dice to collect double or triple damages if a franchisor was terminating their relationship and all that the franchisee must show is that the franchisor acted with knowledge? The Foley Distribution & Franchise Practice Group will be keeping an eye on this proposal as it makes its way through the legislative process.
The full text of the bill is available here.
Author(s)
Related Insights
21 March 2025
IP Litigation Current
Federal Circuit Opens the Door to Additional Domestic Industry Investment: “Ordinary Importer” No Longer
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B).
21 March 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Federal Court Rejects FCA’s “65%-100%” Language as Insufficient to Constitute the Necessary Quantity Term in a Requirements Contract—A Win for Suppliers
A recent federal court decision marks an important win for automotive suppliers in the ongoing debate over what constitutes a valid requirements contract under Michigan law following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in MSSN, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co. (2023).
27 April 2025
Events
Innovative Payment Strategies in Proton Therapy: Addressing Challenges and Driving Value
Foley partner Kinal Patel is speaking at the 2025 National Proton Conference in a panel titled “Innovative Payment Strategies in Proton Therapy: Addressing Challenges and Driving Value” on April 27.