California Codes
Cal. Corporations Code § 31512 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any condition, stipulation or provision purporting to bind any person acquiring any franchise to waive compliance with any provision of this law or any rule or order hereunder is void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984).
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984). “" Cal. Corp. Code Ann. § 31512 (West 1977).”
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). “, at 10 (discussing Cal. Corp. Code Ann. § 31512 (West 1977)).”
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015). “The Court in Southland held that § 2 preempted a provision of California’s Franchise Investment Law, Cal. Corp. Code § 31512 (1977), as applied to arbitration agreements.”
1-800-GOT JUNK? LLC v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “Further, it is the intent of this law to prohibit the sale of franchises where the sale would lead to fraud or a likelihood that the franchisor’s promises would not be fulfilled, and to protect the franchisor and franchisee by providing a better understanding of the relationship…”
Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006). “The plaintiff class in Southland alleged violation of the disclosure requirements of the California Franchise Investment Law, Cal. Corp. Code § 31512 , arguing that claims brought under the Franchise Investment Law required judicial consideration and, therefore, the arbitration…”
Meadows v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “See Cal Corp. Code § 31512; see also Wimsatt v.”
Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “These protections included a non-waiver statute that voids provisions in a franchise agreement purporting to waive any of the protections under the FIL (Corp. Code, § 31512). (Wimsatt, supra, 32 Cal.”
JRS Prods., Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “) and the Franchise Investment Law (Corporations Code § 31512). Pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1667 and 1668, all contractual provisions which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from obeying the laws of California are unlawful and void.”
Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics Int'l, Inc., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1700 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “(Corp. Code, § 31512.) This case presents the important issue, spared the court in Lu v.”
Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1812 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “) But United States Supreme Court authority does not address a statute such as the PAGA, which is a mechanism by which the state itself can enforce state labor laws, because the employee suing under the PAGA “does so as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement…”
Trombetta v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “C.S.A. § 7302, Scope of Subchapter. We also note that our standards of review for statutory arbitration are quite similar to both the FAA standards and our own common law standards.”
Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 1207 (Ill. 2010). “at 858 , quoting Cal. Corp. Code Ann. §31512 (West 1977). The California Supreme Court interpreted this statute to require judicial consideration of claims brought under it and therefore refused to enforce the parties’ contract to arbitrate such claims.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.