Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.100
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.220 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In any proceeding under this chapter, the burden of proving an exception from a definition or an exemption from registration is upon the person claiming it.
(2) Any agreement, condition, stipulation or provision, including a choice of law provision, purporting to bind any person to waive compliance with any provision of this chapter or any rule or order hereunder is void. A release or waiver executed by any person pursuant to a negotiated settlement in connection with a bona fide dispute between a franchisee and a franchisor, arising after their franchise agreement has taken effect, in which the person giving the release or waiver is represented by independent legal counsel, is not an agreement prohibited by this subsection.
(3) This chapter represents a fundamental policy of the state of Washington.
[ 1991 c 226 s 13; 1972 ex.s. c 116 s 14; 1971 ex.s. c 252 s 22.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Yei Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, 901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yei Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, 901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018). “130 ; Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.220 . SUN V. ADVANCED CHINA HEALTHCARE 15 Because an antiwaiver provision by itself does not supersede a forum-selection clause, in order to prove that enforcement of such a clause “would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit…”
Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2013). “” RCW 19.100.220(2). While Connecticut law may apply generally, Washington’s FIPA, not Connecticut’s franchise law, applies to this dispute.”
Rutter v. BX of Tri-Cities, Inc., 806 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “180 designate certain practices in connection with the sale, execution, renewal or termination of franchise agreements as unlawful acts. RCW 19.100.190, characterizing the practices prohibited by RCW 19.”
Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. v. MAK, LLC, 663 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2011). “The plaintiffs, in response, pointed to FIPA’s anti-waiver provision, Wash.Rev. Code § 19.100.220, which invalidates certain settlements of FIPA claims.”
Taylor v. 1-800-Got-Junk?, LLC, 632 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (W.D. Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “13)), which invalidates a release of FIPA claims unless the franchisee is represented by independent counsel, see Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.220 (2). The Taylors assert that the settlement and release is invalid and does not bar the instant suit because they were not represented…”
Corp v. Atl.-Richfield Co., 726 P.2d 66 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “The appellant, ARCO, had the burden of proving, see RCW 19.100.220, that its percentage of sales lease came under one of the exceptions to the definition of a franchise fee.”
Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.220 . Further, Paragraph 13 3 removes any concern that Plaintiffs would be forced to travel to Louisiana to mediate or 14 arbitrate their claims.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.220(2) — 1 case
Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2013). “” RCW 19.100.220(2). While Connecticut law may apply generally, Washington’s FIPA, not Connecticut’s franchise law, applies to this dispute.”
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.