Fla. Stat. § 501.204

Section 501.204 is sufficiently definite and provides adequate standards to avoid an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Department of Legal Affairs v. Rogers · filed 1976-02-25

Accordingly, for the reasons aforestated, we hold that Sections 501.204 and 501.205, Florida Statutes, are constitutional, are not vague and indefinite and do not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Section 501.204 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Black v. Department of Legal Affairs · filed 1977-12-28

The aforesaid Unfair Trade Practices Act proscribes "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." [1] Pursuant to the act, the state Department of Legal Affairs is empowered to enact rules which "prohibit with specificity" acts or practices deemed deceptive or unfair. [2] The department in fact promulgated such rules and the trial court found herein that appellants, individually, were guilty of deceptive and unfair trade practices as proscribed thereby. There is ample evidence in the record to support such a finding, so the injunction must stand.

Section 501.204 does not establish a violation as a matter of law when competent evidence permits a jury to find that no unfair or deceptive trade practice occurred.

Chicken Unlimited, Inc. v. Bockover · filed 1979-08-22(1)

Suffice it to say, there was sufficient competent evidence from which the jury could find that Chicken Unlimited was not guilty of any deceptive or unfair trade practices.

Section 501.204(1) covers unfair or deceptive trade practices beyond exaggerated advertising, and a violation does not require fraud.

Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc. · filed 1985-05-07(1)

Although the cases, both state and federal, seem to have most often classified exaggerated advertising claims as "unfair and deceptive" in violation of the act, the language of the statute does not limit its application to these types of cases, but makes it applicable to all "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade." § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) (emphasis supplied). ... A finding of fraud, however, is not necessary to sustain a violation under the act.

Section 501.204 prohibits deceptive services and advertising by a bankruptcy document preparer who practices law without a license.

Samuels v. American Legal Clinic, Inc. (In Re Samuels) · filed 1994-12-29(1)

This Court finds Ms. Longley’s services and advertisements are deceptive and, therefore, violate the Florida UDAP laws.

Section 501.204 permits a claim when a dealer allegedly conceals that a purported car sale is a lease and deprives the customer of a trade-in.

Cummings v. Warren Henry Motors, Inc. · filed 1995-01-18

In light of the liberality contemplated under section 501.204, we hold that appellant has stated a cause of action when taking as true, as this court must, his allegations that defendants intentionally concealed from appellant that he was entering into a lease agreement rather than a sales agreement and that he was deprived of his trade-in from his own vehicle.

Section 501.204(1) does not support an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim based on a competitor’s mark when the defendant did not pass off its goods or services as the competitor’s or benefit from the mark.

Nassau v. Unimotorcyclists Society of America, Inc. · filed 1999-05-25(1)

Nevertheless, as previously discussed, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing unfair or deceptive trade practices. Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that Defendants passed off their services or goods as Plaintiffs or otherwise benefitted from Plaintiffs mark. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot prevail on this claim.

Section 501.204(1) treats billing passengers for port charges as deceptive when the cruise line keeps part of those charges for itself.

Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, NV · filed 2000-02-02(1)

We therefore conclude that where the cruise line bills the passenger for port charges but keeps part of the money for itself, that is a deceptive practice under FDUTPA. Reliance and damages are sufficiently shown by the fact that the passenger parted with money for what should have been a "pass-through" port charge, but the cruise line kept the money.

Section 501.204 covers unfair practices established by the trademark conduct that also supported the federal claims.

Victoria's Cyber Secret Ltd. Partnership v. v Secret Catalogue, Inc. · filed 2001-09-10

G. Fifth Counterclaim, Trademark Dilution — (Florida Statute § 495.15); Sixth Counterclaim, Deceptive and Unfair Practices and Florida’s Consumer Protection Law (Florida Statute § 501.204); Seventh Counterclaim, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition. ... The same facts and legal analysis giving rise to a finding that Defendants Victoria Secret have established their entitlement to summary judgment on their first counterclaim (violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), ... their second counterclaim (federal trademark infringement), their third counterclaim (Unfair competition in violation of federal law), their fourth counterclaim (federal trademark dilution) impel the conclusion and merit of finding of intentional trademark infringement, unfair competition arid dilution under the State of Florida and common law infringement claims.

Section 501.204 does not treat a simply negligent, immaterial mistake about a mobile home's make or model as an unfair or deceptive trade practice when there is no intent to deceive or gross negligence.

Skaggs v. Clear-Bay Mobile Home Exchange, Inc. · filed 1985-12-31

The Court finds that the word “false” must be read in conjunction with the words “deceptive or misleading” and that a mistake amounting to simple negligence is insufficient to establish an unfair or deceptive act or practice since there was no intent to deceive nor an act of gross negligence.

Section 501.204 prohibits a mover from presenting an estimate as a flat charge without disclosing that packing charges may change or that warehouse labor will be charged.

Dominguez v. Walker · filed 1986-08-04

Defendant’s conduct concerning the estimate constituted a violation of Section 501.204. By his own testimony, Defendant treated the estimate he wrote as the “approximate cost of what a service may come to.” However, on its face, the estimate appears to be a flat charge for the entire moving job. With certain exceptions, the estimate contains no limitation or disclaimer that the prices quoted were subject to revision based on actual work done. The estimate for packing is a flat fee of $175.00 with no indication that an hourly rate would be charged. The estimate contains no charge whatsoever for warehouse labor charges.

Section 501.204 prohibits imposing excessive or false charges as a condition of releasing a consumer’s property held in bailment.

Green v. Jean · filed 1986-08-07

The imposition of excessive or false charges in a bailment transaction is precisely the type of conduct which offends Section 501.204.

Section 501.204(1) permits a deceptive trade practices claim to reach a jury when the evidence supports a finding of misrepresentation or deceptive nondisclosure.

Suris v. Gilmore Liquidating, Inc. · filed 1995-03-15(1)

Here, Suris alleged sufficient misrepresentation and deceptive non-disclosure on Anthony Abraham's part to, at the very least, create a jury question concerning the deceptive or misleading nature of Anthony Abraham's acts under the FDUTPA, thereby precluding the directed verdict on the FDUTPA count that was ordered.

Section 501.204(1) permits a claim based on a dealer's alleged disposal of a buyer's trade-in after representing that the buyer's order would not become binding unless financing conditions were met.

Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale · filed 2001-03-28(1)

The Plaintiffs alleged King Motor represented to them that they were not entering into a contract, induced them to sign the buyers order, and then immediately acted as if by signing the buyers order, the Plaintiffs had given them permission to immediately dispose of their trade-in vehicle, even though the contingencies that transformed the buyers order into a contract never occurred. According to the Plaintiffs, King Motor never once offered to compensate the Plaintiffs for the disposal of their trade-in vehicle. This behavior offends public policy and is immoral, unethical, and substantially injurious to consumers situated similarly to the Plaintiffs, who are left without a vehicle and likely little ability to get one because they no longer have a trade-in vehicle as a down-payment and cannot secure affordable financing. Thus, given the sum of the allegations in the second amended complaint and taking them as true, the Plaintiffs could state a cause of action under FDUTPA.

Section 501.204 treats a retailer’s misrepresentation of a credit charge as a non-filing insurance fee as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

WS Badcock Corp. v. Myers · filed 1996-12-17

The conflicts in the evidence are minimal, and do not undermine the trial court's conclusion that Badcock misrepresented the nature of the non-filing fee, and in so doing, committed an unfair and deceptive trade practice as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the order certifying a class in Case No. 95-2592, and we affirm the order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in Case No. 95-4648.

Section 501.204(1) does not treat a condominium reservation agreement as deceptive or unfair when it clearly disclaims a fixed-price sale and permits cancellation.

Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc. · filed 2006-05-10(1)

Therefore, the Reservation Agreement is not likely to mislead a consumer, and the Court does not consider it to constitute a deceptive and unfair trade practice under FDUTPA.

Section 501.204 makes inadequate disclosures to consumers actionable even when the claim does not rely on federal law.

Rubin v. Mastercard International, LLC · filed 2004-10-14

In contrast, Rubin’s FDUTPA claim does not necessitate interpretation of federal law since the failure to make adequate disclosures to consumers is independently actionable irrespective of whether a plaintiff relies on federal authority.

Section 501.204 requires proof of unfairness; a claim based on alleged trade dress infringement and dilution fails when neither conduct nor unfairness is shown.

HI Ltd. Partnership v. Winghouse of Florida, Inc. · filed 2004-12-13

Finally, Plaintiffs’ state law claims fail because they are founded on the proposition that Defendants’ infringed and diluted Plaintiffs’ trade dress, and the foregoing discussion conclusively demonstrates that Defendants did no such thing. The state claims require proof of unfairness, and no such proof has been presented.

Section 501.204 prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce; protected diet advice that is not unfair or deceptive does not violate it.

Gorran v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. · filed 2006-12-11(1)

As an initial matter, for the reasons set forth above, defendants’ conduct was not unfair or deceptive, and defendants’ Diet advice and ideas are protected by the First Amendment.

Section 501.204(1) permits a claim based on alleged unconscionable, unfair, or deceptive trade practices, regardless of the terms of a specific contract provision.

State v. Commerce Commercial Leasing, LLC · filed 2007-01-26(1)

Count I of the first amended complaint clearly states a cause of action premised on alleged "unconscionable acts or practices" and alleged "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce," regardless of the terms in any specific contract provision.

Section 501.204(1) covers unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, including the alleged use of a competitor’s employees to misappropriate its trade secrets if proved.

Furmanite America, Inc. v. T.D. Williamson, Inc. · filed 2007-04-11(1)

A practice is unfair under FDUT-PA if it offends established public policy, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Section 501.204 covers a misleading presentation of a loan term when it is likely to mislead a reasonable borrower.

Sundance Apartments I, Inc. v. General Electric Capital Corp. · filed 2008-05-06(1)

Thus, accepting all of the facts plead in the Amended Complaint as true and in the light most favorable to Sundance, the required elements of Sundance’s FDUTPA claim against GECC — a deceptive act, causation, and damages—have been adequately plead.

Section 501.204(1) covers copying a competitor’s specifications and obtaining and disclosing its confidential information as unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Sensormatic Electronics Corp. v. TAG CO. US, LLC · filed 2008-12-19(1)

TAG instructed Mr. Gadonniex to review and disclose confidential Sensormatic information and documents. TAG’s actions therefore constitute unfair and deceptive practices within the meaning of FDUTPA.

Section 501.204(1) covers unfair or deceptive practices arising from a business relationship even when the conduct does not breach an express contract term.

Siever v. BWGaskets, Inc. · filed 2009-10-27(1)

Accordingly, a claim under FDUTPA is not defined by the express terms of a contract, but instead encompasses unfair and deceptive practices arising out of business relationships.

Under § 501.204, a consumer claiming a deceptive act must have been exposed to the allegedly deceptive message, but may use related advertisements the consumer did not personally see to prove it was deceptive.

Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc. · filed 2010-01-11

Accordingly, to satisfy the first element for a consumer claim for damages under the FDUTPA, each plaintiff would need to prove he or she was exposed to General Mills’ allegedly deceptive message that eating Yo-Plus promotes digestive health in ways that eating normal yogurt cannot. However, a plaintiff seeking to prove that General Mills’ digestive health message is “deceptive” may rely on any evidence concerning that message, including advertisements to which he or she was not personally exposed.

Section 501.204(1) allows a claim based on detailed allegations that a seller used deceptive or unfair conduct to deprive a broker of a commission.

Intercoastal Realty, Inc. v. Tracy · filed 2010-04-16(1)

Alternatively, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has “failed to adequately allege a cause of action for relief under the statute” because Plaintiffs allegations are merely conclusory. The Court disagrees. The Complaint is replete with detailed factual allegations setting forth the allegedly deceptive act and unfair practice that Defendant employed to deprive Plaintiff of a commission for the sale of the Property. The Court will not dismiss Count IV.

Section 501.204 requires a deceptive act likely to mislead consumers or an unfair practice that offends established public policy and is otherwise immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious.

Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2010-04-20

The sine qua non of a FDUTPA claim is a “deceptive act” or “unfair practice,” i.e., an act that is likely to mislead consumers or a practice that offends established public policy and is otherwise “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious.” ... There is absolutely no evidence that Ford’s conduct was deceptive or unfair.

A claim under § 501.204 fails when the defendants engaged in no deceptive or fraudulent practice.

JDI HOLDINGS, LLC v. Jet Management, Inc. · filed 2010-08-06

JDI asserts that Jet and Kerr engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices in violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), which declares unlawful any “[ujnfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204. ... Because the court has concluded that neither Jet nor Kerr engaged in a deceptive or fraudulent practice, this claim fails.

Section 501.204(1) does not prohibit a mortgage nominee’s presuit description of itself as a creditor when its role was disclosed and the description would not materially mislead a reasonable borrower.

Trent v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2007-07-20(1)

For the same reasons expressed addressing the FCCPA claim, the Court finds that MERS’ pre-suit representations are not “unfair” or “deceptive” as those terms are defined in FDUTPA and that there are no allegations that plaintiffs, as reasonable consumers, relied on MERS’ pre-suit communications to their detriment. Based on the filed exemplar mortgage contract, the lenders disclosed MERS’ role from the outset of the transaction.

Section 501.204(1) does not require a duty to disclose as an element of a FDUTPA claim.

Morris v. ADT Security Services · filed 2008-10-03(1)

Additionally, a duty to disclose is not an element of FDUTPA.

Section 501.204(1) does not require proof of actual reliance, but an alleged deceptive practice must be likely to deceive a reasonable consumer in the same circumstances.

Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. v. Lenora Foods I, LLC · filed 2009-06-03(1)

But the plaintiff must prove that “the alleged practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances.” Id. The alleged conduct at issue does not meet that standard.

Section 501.204(1) covers unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce, and an adequately pleaded claim based on fraudulent billing can survive a motion to dismiss.

Nationwide Mutual Co. v. Ft. Myers Total Rehab Center, Inc. · filed 2009-08-13(1)

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) provides for a civil cause of action for “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). ... Nonetheless, if such specificity is required, the Court finds that the Complaint is adequately plead in this case. ... The motions to dismiss on these bases will be denied.

A false product safety representation coupled with a delayed recall can adequately allege an unfair or deceptive practice under section 501.204(1).

Jovine v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2011-04-12(1)

Thus, assuming these allegations are true, and taking those allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has adequately alleged an unfair or deceptive practice.

A consumer adequately pleads an unfair practice by alleging that a product was represented as dependable and free of defects, malfunctioned, and could not be repaired for at least two months.

Hill v. Hoover Co. · filed 2012-10-01(1)

Thus, assuming these allegations are true, and taking those allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that the Defendants engaged in an unfair practice.

Section 501.204(1) covers a dealer’s alleged withholding of required disclosures and concealment of fees as a deceptive or unfair practice sufficient to plead a traditional FDUTPA claim.

Williams v. Delray Auto Mall, Inc. · filed 2013-01-07(1)

The FDUPTA declares unlawful any method of unfair competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). ... Williams’ Amended Complaint contends that Defendants withheld the complete set of documents containing necessary disclosures and argues that certain fees and charges were not disclosed. The alleged behavior of Defendants fit within the definition of a “traditional” FDUPTA violation.

Section 501.204(1) imposes liability for deceptive or unfair trade practices that cause actual damages.

Tempay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLC · filed 2013-05-15(1)

Moreover, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Biltres Staffing and Otto Biltres engaged in deceptive or unfair trade practices causing damages to TemPay.

Section 501.204 requires facts showing a deceptive act or unfair practice; an alleged representation must be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer to the consumer’s detriment.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Foxx · filed 2013-09-19

Specifically, Foxx fails to allege facts showing that Defendants engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice. Foxx further fails to allege that Defendants’ representation in the SMA was likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstance, to the consumer’s detriment.

Section 501.204(1) requires a plausible deceptive practice; a general assurance that a lender will help borrowers facing hardship does not guarantee a loan modification.

Molina v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC · filed 2015-12-02(1)

Here, Ms. Molina did not assert sufficient factual allegations to state a claim under the FDUTPA. First, she did not allege any deception that was likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. ... A reasonable consumer would not interpret the assertion on the websites to mean that a borrower would be guaranteed a loan modification if she applied for one.

Section 501.204(1) does not require a defendant to know of an alleged product defect for a consumer to state a deceptive practice claim.

Gavron v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. · filed 2011-05-11(1)

The Court finds that FDUTPA does not require Weather Shield to have subjective knowledge of alleged defects in order for Gavron to state a viable FDUTPA claim.

Section 501.204(1) does not treat an employee’s undisclosed referrals to a competitor as deceptive acts when the employee had no non-compete agreement and the referrals caused the employer no financial harm.

Hennegan Co. v. Arriola · filed 2012-03-30(1)

Although Arriola did not tell Hennegan about his other referral work, the Court finds that the secret referrals do not qualify as “deceptive acts” under FDUTPA. For instance, Hennegan and Arriola never executed a non-compete agreement, therefore Arriola had the right to work independently as long as his work did not cause any financial harm to Hennegan. As a result, the Court finds that Arriola was not deceptive in referring these customers to Solo without disclosing such referrals to Hennegan.

Section 501.204(1) allows a deceptive-practices claim based on misleading product labels to proceed when the plaintiff adequately alleges injury caused by the labels, even without direct contact with the seller.

Koch v. Royal Wine Merchants, Ltd. · filed 2012-12-05(1)

At least with respect to the labels on the bottles, the alleged deceptive practices are sufficiently established to allow the claim to proceed. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has properly alleged proximate causation based on the same reasoning that allows a finding of reliance upon misrepresentations embodied in articles of commerce despite no direct interactions between Plaintiff and Royal — noting again the distinction between proximate causation under the general common law and proximate causation for RICO purposes. To the extent Royal can be held accountable for embodying misrepresentations in counterfeit wine labels, they have engaged in a deceptive practice that proximately caused injury to Plaintiff when he purchased the bottles of wine believing their labels accurately reflected their contents. The Court will therefore deny the motion as to claim seven.

Section 501.204(1) applies a reasonable consumer standard to deceptive practices and does not require proof of each consumer’s individual reliance.

Bowe v. Public Storage · filed 2015-04-29(1)

The correct inquiry here based on Eleventh Circuit precedent, is whether Public Storage’s misrepresentations were “likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances,” an inquiry that does not require a showing of each class members’ individualized reliance.

Section 501.204(1) uses an objective standard for deceptive practices: the act must be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, without proof of subjective reliance.

Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Air Capital Group, LLC · filed 2015-06-11(1)

A FDUTPA claim, unlike a claim for fraud, requires proof that defendant’s act would likely “mislead the [objective] consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.”

Section 501.204(1) prohibits deceptive trade practices; allegations that milk marketing falsely claimed DHA supports brain health state a claim under that prohibition.

In re Horizon Organic Milk Plus Dha Omega-3 Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation · filed 2013-07-24(1)

Plaintiffs Schucher, Gindele, and Wilson have stated claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Like Plaintiffs Auer and Sisneros, Plaintiffs Schucher, Gindele, and Wilson allege that WhiteWave made false statements or misrepresentations that DHA “supports brain health” in connection with the sale and advertisement of its DHA-fortified milk products.

Section 501.204(1) covers alleged unfair practices in arranging force-placed flood insurance even when the mortgage permits the lender to require that insurance.

Degutis v. Financial Freedom, LLC · filed 2013-10-18(1)

Given these allegations and taking them as true as the Court must at the Motion to Dismiss stage, the Plaintiff has stated a cause of action under FDUTPA. While the contract provisions at issue are entirely permissible under federal law, Plaintiffs allegations under this Count go beyond whether Defendants breached the contract.

Section 501.204(1) permits an unfair-practice claim to proceed on allegations that hospitals charged unreasonable rates for PIP-covered radiological services.

Herrera v. JFK Medical Center Ltd. Partnership · filed 2015-02-20(1)

Plaintiffs’ allegations are minimally sufficient to plead a cause of action under the FDUTPA, and are sufficient to support a breach of contract action against all Defendants.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Federal Trade Commission v. Lifewatch Inc. · filed 2016-03-31(1)

The FDUTPA likewise prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; disputed facts about a business’s conduct may prevent summary judgment on whether it violated that prohibition.

Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Dependable Warehousing & Distribution, Inc. · filed 2018-03-20(1)

Even if Defendant was contractually obligated to insure Camerican's vegetables, a reasonable juror could still find that Defendant's actions were fair. Accordingly, a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Defendant's actions were unfair or deceptive under the Act and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Count II is denied.

Section 501.204(1) does not support an unfair or deceptive acts claim based on a party's lawful refusal to consent to a contract assignment.

Cableview Communications of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Southeast, LLC · filed 2018-08-23(1)

Similarly, Cableview cannot establish unfair or deceptive acts under the FDUTPA because it cannot show that Time Warner wrongfully withheld its consent to the assignment.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce and is construed in the same manner as Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Life Mgmt. Servs. of Orange Cnty., LLC · filed 2018-12-07(1)

Both Section 5 and FDUTPA prohibit "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce," 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) ; Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1), and they are construed in the same manner.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Sussman · filed 2019-05-31(1)

FDUTPA prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" committed "in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; allegations of misleading windshield replacement advertising and solicitation can state a claim.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Auto Glass America, LLC · filed 2019-09-30(1)

As previously mentioned, FDUTPA makes illegal “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). ... Thus, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the elements of an FDUTPA claim to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for Counts II, III, and IV.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits deceptive trade practices even when a misleading statement later turns out to be true.

Carriuolo v. General Motors Company · filed 2016-05-17(1)

A defendant may not escape FDUTPA liability under Florida law merely because a deceptive or misleading statement later turns out to be true.

Section 501.204 prohibits unfair practices and deceptive practices in trade or commerce.

In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. · filed 2017-12-21

FDUTPA has two distinct prongs: an unfair practice prong and a deceptive prong.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits deceptive trade practices, including misleading customers about FDA approval and regulatory compliance.

Allergan USA, Inc. v. Prescribers Choice, Inc. · filed 2019-01-11(1)

The Court notes that its analysis regarding the Lanham Act and FAL applies here. Defendants made misleading statements to customers regarding FDA approval and compliance with Section 503B.

Section 501.204 permits common proof of an alleged deceptive practice when every customer received the same representation and none was told the truth about it.

Waste Pro USA and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. v. Vision Construction ENT, Inc. · filed 2019-09-18(1)

The record reflects that every customer who paid the environmental fee received the same representation from Waste Pro, and no class member was informed that the environmental fee was not used to offset environmental costs. This course of conduct by Waste Pro does not create individualized questions.

Section 501.204(1) covers deceptive pricing allegations that a business advertised one fee and charged a higher one; disputed facts about what the customer knew cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

Cross v. Point & Pay, LLC · filed 2017-03-31(1)

With regard to Plaintiff’s first FDUTPA claim, Defendant does not dispute that the'alleged practice of advertising one price and then deceiving a customer into paying a higher price would constitute an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of FDUTPA. ... As set forth above, this argument requires the Court to engage in factual determinations, which is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss.

Section 501.204(1) can cover a fee described as covering specific costs when the seller allegedly keeps most of it as profit, even if the fee amount was disclosed.

Maor v. Dollar Thrifty Auto. Grp., Inc. · filed 2017-07-18(1)

Maor therefore alleges a deceptive practice that damages consumers by charging them more than necessary under the guise of a pass-through cost for a specific purpose. ... Dollar's arguments that the Court should dismiss the FTDUPA claim thus fail.

For a deceptive advertising claim under § 501.204(1), each class member must have been exposed to the challenged materials and suffered damage caused by them.

Hummel v. Tamko Bldg. Prods., Inc. · filed 2017-09-07(1)

Therefore, in order to prove liability under FDUTPA, the Court must find that "(1) each putative class member was exposed to [Tamko's] advertising and marketing materials alleged to constitute a deceptive trade practice and (2) if exposed, the advertising and marketing materials caused each putative class member damage."

Section 501.204(1) covers unfair competition and unconscionable, unfair, or deceptive practices in trade or commerce; factual disputes about the alleged practices can preclude summary judgment.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Performance Orthapaedics & Neurosurgery, LLC · filed 2018-05-09(1)

To establish a traditional FDUTPA violation, plaintiff must show defendants engaged in "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... Thus, summary judgment on State Farm's FDUTPA claim is inappropriate.

Section 501.204(1) covers deceptive omissions when a person who voluntarily speaks in a transaction has a duty to disclose material information.

White v. Freeman · filed 2018-07-06(1)

FDUTPA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). ... But as discussed above, Freeman did have a duty to disclose material information to the Whites once he voluntarily agreed to speak with them.

Section 501.204(1) does not support a deceptive-practice claim based on an omission when the alleged statements create no duty to disclose the omitted information.

Parziale v. HP, Inc. · filed 2020-04-24(1)

Because none of the allegedly misleading statements gave rise to a duty to disclose ... additional information, the Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations as to HP’s omissions are ... insufficient to state a claim under FDUTPA.

Section 501.204 allows a claim based on selling a defective product without disclosing the defect.

Fusco v. General Motors LLC · filed 2019-09-27

Sirota alleges GM violated FDUTPA by manufacturing and selling 2010-2013 SRXs with the Leaking Sunroof Defect without disclosing the existence of the defect. Sirota establishes that, on its face, this type of claim is actionable under FDUTPA.

Section 501.204(1) does not make general claims about a service provider’s expertise actionable when they amount to puffery.

Hertz Corporation v. Accenture LLP · filed 2019-10-25(1)

Accenture’s representation that it housed “800 [e]xperts” amounting to “[t]he best talent in the world,” along with its promise that it had “the skills you need to win” and would “put the right team on the ground [on] day one,” are quintessential examples of puffery. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the alleged misstatements in the marketing presentation are non-actionable.

Section 501.204 does not make a disclosed pre-delivery acceptance term an unfair or deceptive practice when the plaintiff alleges no misleading statement or omission about its effect.

St. Francis LLC v. Cynosure, Inc. · filed 2020-10-27

Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant Pawnee omitted any information about the pre-delivery acceptance term or made any representations that misled Plaintiffs about the effects of this term. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show how these facts amount to an unfair or deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA.

Section 501.204 covers inducing a business to spend substantial resources pursuing certification when the defendant never intends to grant it.

CRMSuite Corporation v. General Motors Company · filed 2021-03-10

The Court, however, finds that CRMSuite has pled a prima facie FDUTPA claim based on a theory of harm similar to that alleged in Count IV—that GM induced CRMSuite to expend significant resources in pursuit of premium certification, though never intending, and ultimately refusing, to grant premium certification.

Section 501.204(1) requires a plausible allegation of deceptive or unfair conduct in trade or commerce.

Schwartz v. ADP, LLC. · filed 2021-07-26(1)

Yet it is unclear how Schwartz was a person misled by ADP’s deceptive or unfair conduct in trade or commerce.

Section 501.204 requires an unfair practice to cause substantial consumer injury that outweighs countervailing benefits and could not reasonably have been avoided.

Parziale v. HP, Inc. · filed 2020-09-29(1)

An act or practice is “unfair” under FDUTPA if it causes consumer injury that is (1) substantial, (2) not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition, and (3) one that consumers themselves could not have reasonably avoided (the “Section 5 Test”). ... Thus, even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, it is clear from the face of the SAC and the documents incorporated therein that consumers could have reasonably avoided any injury caused by the firmware update.

Section 501.204(1) requires facts showing a deceptive or unfair practice; allegations of unprofessional conduct alone do not suffice.

Shearer v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. · filed 2021-03-22(1)

In sum, while Plaintiffs allege Thor’s conduct is unprofessional, it does not rise to the level of being deceptive or unfair under Florida law.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; a claim may proceed when particularized allegations connect deceptive conduct to actual damages.

MANETTA v. NAVIENT CORPORATION · filed 2021-07-08(1)

Plaintiffs further plead that they were damaged because those misrepresentations and/or omissions led to Plaintiffs paying more in interest over the life of the loan than was contractually required. Therefore, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the elements for a claim under the FDUTPA and Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count Four will be denied.

Section 501.204(1) requires facts showing a deceptive act or unfair practice; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Lavender Health Care, LLC v. Redstone LLC · filed 2021-09-14(1)

The complaint does not plead a deceptive act or unfair practice.

Section 501.204(1) requires a traditional FDUTPA claimant to show an unfair method of competition, an unconscionable act or practice, or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in trade or commerce.

Partners Biomedical Solutions, LLC v. Saltsman · filed 2021-12-03(1)

To establish a traditional FDUTPA violation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

Section 501.204(1) requires an unfair or deceptive practice; a certification claim fails when there is no misleading representation and a reasonable vendor would not have been deceived.

CRMSuite Corporation v. General Motors Company · filed 2022-03-01(1)

Ultimately, Plaintiff cannot establish that GM engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of FDUTPA.

Section 501.204(1) covers false statements made to induce a customer to finance equipment as a deceptive act.

St. Francis LLC v. MMP Capital, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(1)

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have alleged that Huston, acting on behalf of Defendant, engaged in a deceptive act by making false statements about the TempSure System to induce Plaintiffs into financing it.

Section 501.204(1) can cover a mortgage servicer’s concealed retention of most of a payment processing fee when the charge is likely to mislead consumers.

McFadden v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2022-04-04(1)

Moreover, even if the issue of whether a practice is unfair or deceptive is a question of law, rather than a question of fact, the Court finds that a “‘pass-through charge,’ leaving $0.50 with the third-party processor and $13.50 surreptitiously with Cooper” is likely to mislead.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce; disputed evidence of such conduct, causation, and damages leaves a FDUTPA claim for the jury.

Molbogot v. MarineMax East, Inc. · filed 2022-07-11(1)

When the facts pulled directly from Plaintiff’s undisputed facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant, there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the granting of summary judgment as to Count II in Plaintiff’s favor. The issues of whether Defendant engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice, causation, and actual damages must be decided by a jury.

Whether alleged conduct is deceptive or unfair under § 501.204(1) is a question of law for the court.

NOLAN v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS · filed 2023-02-13(1)

Whether the alleged facts constitute a deceptive or unfair act is a question of law for the court.

Section 501.204(1) does not make a clear warranty exclusion or the possible need for aftermarket parts unfair or deceptive to a reasonable consumer in these circumstances.

Boyle v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2023-04-27(1)

In the context of Ford’s sale of incomplete vehicles, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that the warranty exclusion or the need for aftermarket parts constitute objectively deceptive or unfair practices.

Section 501.204(1) does not treat a cost estimate as deceptive or unfair when it clearly says the estimate assumes insurance coverage.

Nolan v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings · filed 2024-04-10(1)

The FDUTPA makes illegal “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). ... Here, we again agree with the district court that the Patient Acknowledgment was not misleading and did not violate any long standing public policy or amount to an immoral or oppressive practice.

Section 501.204(1) covers representations likely to mislead reasonable consumers and requires a resulting injury.

A.B., a minor, by and through his guardian JEN TURNER v. GOOGLE LLC · filed 2024-06-18(1)

Both the NYGBL and FDUTPA require a deceptive act that misleads consumers and causes them to suffer an injury. ... By pointing out specific statements made by defendants about the suitability of DFF apps for children, and adequately pleading with circumstantial evidence that defendants had actual knowledge about the mischaracterization of child-directed apps on the platform, plaintiffs sufficiently allege that defendants made representations likely to mislead reasonable consumers.

Section 501.204(1) requires a FDUTPA claimant to identify a deceptive act or unfair practice.

Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. · filed 2024-08-28(1)

Abira identifies no “deceptive act or unfair practice” other than misrepresentation. See Doc. 1 ¶ 64–70. The FDUTPA claim thus fails.

Section 501.204 requires a deceptive act to be likely to mislead a consumer to the consumer’s detriment; deception of employees alone does not suffice.

Garrett-Alfred v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2021-05-14

For an act to be a deceptive act under FDUTPA, it must be likely to mislead a consumer to a consumer’s detriment.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; a damages claim requires conduct that could deceive an objectively reasonable person.

BLUESTAREXPO, INC. v. Enis · filed 2021-10-25(1)

The Defendants miss the mark: they fail to connect, on the one hand, Wish’s appreciation of Soleil’s suspect reputation and the spurious claims in its comfort letter with, on the other, how an “objectively reasonable person” might have been deceived by not only the comfort letter but also by Enis and R&T’s alleged deceptions as well. Without more, then, the Court denies the Defendants’ request to dismiss Bluestar’s FDUTPA claim on this basis.

Section 501.204(1) reaches a manufacturer’s knowing failure to disclose a material defect that diminishes a product’s value.

Talley v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2021-11-26(1)

In Florida, a manufacturer may not “knowingly fail[] to disclose a material defect that diminishes a product’s value.”

Section 501.204 makes all deceptive and unfair trade practices unlawful.

Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Wesley Financial Group, LLC · filed 2023-08-08(1)

In addition, under Florida law, all deceptive and unfair trade practices are unlawful, see id., while the TCPA enumerates acts and practices deemed to be unlawful, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b)(1)–26), (b)(28)–(62).

Section 501.204(1) can cover automatically adding undisclosed optional fees, even when the customer signed the contract.

Consentino v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC · filed 2024-08-29(1)

Moreover, allegations of businesses automatically adding undisclosed optional fees, or “negative options” without alerting consumers, have been found sufficient to constitute a deceptive or unfair practice under the FDUTPA, even where the plaintiff signed a contract.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce; admitted allegations that defendants misrepresented their identity and affiliation to divert customers can establish a violation.

Rustik Haws, LLC v. Lime Press, LLC · filed 2025-02-12(1)

The Court finds that the foregoing well-pleaded allegations, which are deemed admitted by virtue of Defendants’ default, are sufficient to establish Defendants violated FDUTPA. Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment on this claim.

Section 501.204(1) does not itself identify drug adulteration or misbranding as unfair or deceptive practices; a claim alleging those acts may depend on a predicate violation of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Brooksville Pharmaceuticals Inc. · filed 2025-05-12(1)

The terms “adulterated” and “misbranded” are neither mentioned in the text of FDUTPA, see Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1), nor listed in the Florida caselaw that defines what counts as an “unfair practice” or “deception,” see Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., 169 So.3d 164, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (defining “unfair practice” and “deception”). ... It is clear that the FDUTPA claim is based on predicate violations of the Florida DCA.

Section 501.204 does not require a common law duty to disclose for a claim based on an omission.

Budzinski v. Mystic Powerboats, Inc. · filed 2025-05-06(1)

Given this guidance, this court agrees with the Morris court that the duty to disclose required for common law fraud claims, see TransPetrol, Ltd. v. Radulovic, 764 So. 2d 878, 879–80 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000), is not an element of a FDUTPA claim based on an omission.

Section 501.204 does not support an unfair competition claim based on palming off when the defendant did not attempt to sell its products as the plaintiff’s.

Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Suave Shoe Corp. · filed 1981-11-09

Palming off, of course, is attempting to sell one’s products as that of another. In light of this Court’s conclusion that Suave did not attempt to palm off its shoes as Brooks shoes, Plaintiff has failed to prove their cause of action under Section 501.204, Florida Statutes.

Section 501.204(1) covers deceptive use of a tradename in newspaper sales that causes public confusion.

Klinger v. Weekly World News, Inc. · filed 1990-10-11(1)

Further, the defendant’s sale of a newspaper certainly would constitute engaging in “trade or commerce” as those terms are used in the Act. Consequently, the plaintiff’s complaint has alleged a violation of § 501.204(1).

Section 501.204(1) covers a conspiracy to fix wholesale prices of goods sold to Florida consumers.

Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co. Ltd. · filed 2000-01-20(1)

As noted above, Execu-Tech alleged that New Oji and other major manufacturers and trading houses of thermal fax paper deliberately conspired to fix the wholesale price of their product throughout the United States, including Florida. This conduct constitutes a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (the "Act"), which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

Section 501.204 covers unfair competition and false advertising arising from the defendants’ phone resale and airtime schemes.

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dixon · filed 2007-02-26

The Court finds that the conduct, although unintentional, alleged by TracFone in the Complaint violates the following statutes: ... unfair competition and false advertising under § 501.204, Fla. Stat.

Section 501.204(1) does not support an unfair competition claim based on alleged trademark misuse when the plaintiff fails to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Custom Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Midway Services, Inc. · filed 2007-11-21(1)

Plaintiff’s failure to establish a likelihood of confusion as to its Lanham Act claim also extinguishes its claim under Florida law.

Section 501.204 treats trademark infringement as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc. · filed 2009-07-24

Engaging in trademark infringement is an unfair and deceptive trade practice that constitutes a “violation of this part.”

Section 501.204(1) prohibits antitrust violations as unfair practices.

In Re Flonase Antitrust Litigation · filed 2011-09-26(1)

GSK fails to address, as Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs point out, that “the acts proscribed by subsection 501.204(1) [of FDUTPA] include antitrust violations.” ... GSK’s reliance on bald assertions is not sufficient to satisfy its initial burden in moving for summary judgment on this issue. Therefore, I will deny GSK motion as to AFL’s and IBEW’s Florida UDTP claim.

Section 501.204(1) can support a claim based on alleged misappropriation of a business idea or trade secret when the complaint sufficiently pleads deceptive conduct and resulting harm.

CareerFairs.com v. United Business Media LLC · filed 2011-09-28(1)

FDUTPA declares unlawful “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) (2006). ... Therefore, the Court finds that it must deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count VII insofar as it relies on the underlying deceptive allegations of misappropriation of business idea and misappropriation of trade secret.

Section 501.204(1) allows an antitrust violation to support a FDUTPA claim as an unfair method of competition without allegations of fraudulent conduct.

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation · filed 2012-03-20(1)

It follows that Florida law recognizes that a FDUTPA claim may arise from a violation of antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act and other state antitrust laws because such a violation in and of itself is an unfair method of competition.

Section 501.204 treats willful trademark infringement through a phone unlocking scheme as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Technopark Co. · filed 2012-04-09(1)

TracFone has established its trademark claims and Technopark’s conduct in the Unlocking Scheme as described above was willful and constitutes unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.204. [D.E. 1. at ¶ 136].

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including willful trademark infringement.

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Cabrera · filed 2012-07-11(1)

TracFone has established its trademark claims and Cabrera conduct in the Illegal Airtime Fraud Scheme as described above was willful and constitutes unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.204.

For a trademark-based claim under Section 501.204(1), the same legal standards apply as under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Suntree Technologies, Inc. v. Ecosense International, Inc. · filed 2012-09-05(1)

Suntree contends that the district court erroneously concluded that the legal ... analysis is the same for all three counts in Suntree’s complaint: violations of the Lanham Act, FDUPTA, and Florida state common law for infringement and unfair competition. We disagree. “[T]he legal standards we apply to [the FDUPTA] claim are the same as those we have applied under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”

Section 501.204(1) covers deceptive claims of business affiliation that could confuse consumers and harm another business’s goodwill.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Timeshares Direct, Inc. · filed 2012-09-07(1)

It also has a right to prevent any deceptive misrepresentations that Timeshares Direct is affiliated with Wyndham. Such conduct could create consumer confusion and damage Wynd-ham’s goodwill, which is actionable under FDUTPA.

Section 501.204 covers unfair competition and false advertising carried out through a social engineering scheme.

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams · filed 2015-04-09

The Court finds that the Adams’s Social Engineering Scheme constitutes federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); tortious interference with contract; unjust enrichment; common law fraud; conversion; unfair competition and false advertising under the § 501.204, Florida Statutes; unauthorized access to a protected computer under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4); theft of computer data under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C); and unauthorized access to a protected computer under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C).

Section 501.204 unfair competition claims may be evaluated under the Lanham Act false advertising framework at the pleading stage.

Incarcerated Entertainment, LLC v. Warner Bros. Pictures · filed 2017-05-10(1)

The parties analyze the Lanham Act claims and state-law claims under the same rubric, consistent with Eleventh Circuit law. ... Accordingly, for purposes of the instant motion, the Court applies the framework of the Lanham Act.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, and adequately pleaded false advertising can support a claim under it.

Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. v. Sussman · filed 2019-08-20(1)

FDUPTA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). ... So, just as the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss the false advertising claims (see Part III.A.–B.), it also denies their motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim.

Section 501.204(1) treats trademark infringement as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, but a claimant must also prove causation and actual damages.

Commodores Entm't Corp. v. McClary · filed 2018-08-23(1)

True, trademark infringement is an unfair and deceptive trade practice that constitutes a violation of FDUTPA. ... But there are still two elements CEC must prove to prevail on this claim: causation and actual damages. ... As CEC briefed only the first element, the Court cannot grant summary judgment on this claim.

Section 501.204 requires a plaintiff bringing an unfair competition claim to allege consumer harm; reduced competition within one brand alone does not suffice.

Tymar Distribution LLC v. Mitchell Group USA, LLC · filed 2021-09-08(1)

Simply put, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged consumer harm, and its FDUTPA claim must be dismissed.

A FDUTPA claim based on alleged trademark infringement must allege that the public is likely to be confused.

Bei Jing Han Tong San Kun Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si v. Atlantic Medical Products, LLC · filed 2022-01-07(1)

However, the Court finds merit to Defendant’s argument that the FDUTPA claim fails because Plaintiff does not allege that the public is likely to be confused by its conduct, which is the basis of the claim.

Section 501.204 permits liability for a corporate officer who directly participates in deceptive home construction dealings, even when the corporation holds the contract.

Anden v. Litinsky · filed 1985-07-10

However, the court there held that, like Anden, the appellant was a direct participant in the dealings with the appellee and therefore there was no necessity to pierce the corporate veil of the contracting party in order to impose liability on the appellant. Section 501.204, Florida Statutes (1979), declares unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... In the light of the consumer regulations set forth above, it appears to us that the trial judge was eminently correct in finding that Anden was guilty of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and entering judgment against him for the Litinskys' damages.

Judicial immunity does not bar a claim under section 501.204 based on an attorney’s conduct in litigation.

ECHEVARRIA, MCCALLA, RAYMER v. Cole · filed 2004-12-30

Furthermore, as a separation of powers matter, a judicially created policy such as the judicial immunity rule must not be used to limit the application of a legislatively created, statutory cause of action. See, e.g., Delgado v. JW Courtesy Pontiac GMC-Truck, Inc., 693 So.2d 602, 607-609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that the economic loss rule does not apply to limit the application of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act). Therefore, we conclude that the judicially created judicial immunity rule cannot be applied as a bar to the statutory causes of action in this case.

A claim under Section 501.204 may proceed against a corporate officer when the complaint alleges a corporate violation and the officer’s direct participation in it.

KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber · filed 2008-01-25

Thus, once the liability of Relay Transportation is established, Mr. Haber is properly named as a defendant, provided it is alleged that he was a direct participant in the actions that constituted a violation of the FDUTPA. As KC Leisure has, indeed, made the requisite allegations, the count states a cause of action against Mr. Haber.

Section 501.204(1) allows an officer to be held liable for direct participation in an unfair or deceptive trade practice without piercing the corporate veil.

North American Clearing, Inc. v. Brokerage Computer System, Inc. · filed 2009-10-05(1)

Piercing the corporate veil is not necessary to hold an individual officer liable under FDUTPA; however, the aggrieved party must show that the individual was a “direct participant” in the improper dealings.

Section 501.204(1) permits liability for direct participation in an unfair or deceptive practice even when the defendant did not initiate it.

Cox v. Porsche Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2020-02-19(1)

In both traditional and per se FDUTPA violations, a defendant is liable if he “directly participated” in violative acts, even if he did not initiate––nor was the principle actor in––the violations. ... However, because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Defendant “directly participated” in Plaintiff’s lease calculation, Galstaldi, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 1056, the Court denies Plaintiff summary judgment as to this claim.

Section 501.204 permits personal liability for a corporate officer who participates in the challenged conduct without piercing the corporate veil.

Reviv IP LLC v. Revive Health and Wellness Stuart LLC · filed 2020-08-24

But, no piercing in this context is necessary. As the Eleventh Circuit held in Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Dynascan Corp., 38 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1994), “a corporate officer who directs, controls, ratifies, participates in, or is the moving force behind the infringing activity [1.e., trademark infringement], is personally liable for such infringement without regard to piercing of the corporate veil.” Jd. at 1184. The same principle applies to claims for unfair competition and trademark infringement under Florida common law and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Section 501.204(1) permits a non-consumer to bring a Florida DUTPA claim if the other elements, including injury or detriment to consumers, are met.

Griffey v. Magellan Health Incorporated · filed 2022-06-02(1)

Consistent with the holding in Caribbean Cruise Line, the Court finds that Lewis’ status as a non-consumer does not affect his ability to bring the claim.

Section 501.204(1) permits an FDUTPA claim against a corporate officer who directed, controlled, or participated in deceptive practices, even when acting for the corporation.

Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc. · filed 2024-06-12(1)

FDUTPA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat. ... Here, the facts of the complaint, supported by affidavit, sufficiently allege that Mr. George directed, controlled, and participated in the deceptive representations that formed the basis of the claim, and that these representations caused the former students’ damages.

Section 501.204 requires the Department to clearly establish that a challenged practice is unfair or deceptive to obtain a temporary injunction under it.

Storer Communications, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Legal Affairs · filed 1991-07-31(1)

Therefore, to obtain the temporary injunction pursuant to section 501.204 the Department had to clearly establish that the ENCORE marketing plan was unfair or deceptive. However, our view of the record reveals that the Department failed to establish that the ENCORE marketing plan was an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

Section 501.204(1) does not require a specific rule or regulation before conduct can be found unfair or deceptive.

DLA v. Father & Son Moving & Storage · filed 1994-09-09(1)

Rather, we interpret Rogers as supporting our holding that a specific rule or regulation pursuant to section 501.205 is not needed to find that conduct was unfair or deceptive in accordance with section 501.204(1).

A claim under § 501.204 alleging fraud must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).

Stires v. Carnival Corp. · filed 2002-11-21(1)

Stires’ Amended Complaint alleges fraud in that she claims that she did not receive the cruise that was promised to her. Hence, her FDUTPA claim should be plead with particularity, and as plead, is insufficient.

Section 501.204 permits indirect purchasers to sue under the FDUTPA, but requires them to plead their claims with particularity under Rule 9(b).

In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litigation · filed 2011-03-11

While indirect purchasers may sue under the FDUTPA, ... nothing relieves an indirect purchaser suing under the act from the burden of pleading the claim with particularity. In the instant case, the IP Plaintiffs have pled no facts which would meet the more stringent requirements of Rule 9(b).

A claim under Section 501.204 based on allegations of deception must satisfy Rule 9(b) when those allegations sound in fraud.

Librizzi v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-08-13(1)

Though the Court acknowledges that “FDUTPA claims can be based on deceptive or unfair- practices that do not involve fraud.. .and need not be pled with particularity,” see, e.g., SIG, Inc. v. AT&T Digital Life, Inc., 971 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1195 (S.D.Fla.2013), the Court finds that based op- the allegations of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Rule 9(b) does apply to Plaintiffs FDUTPA claim.

The delayed discovery rule for fraud does not extend the limitations period for FDUTPA claims, which are founded on statutory liability.

Marlborough Holdings Group, Ltd. v. Azimut-Benetti, SpA, Platinum Yacht Collection No. Two, Inc. · filed 2013-01-31(1)

The delayed discovery rule, however, was inapplicable to Marlborough’s FDUTPA claims, as the FDUTPA is a statute and actions under it are “founded on a statutory liability.”

Section 501.204(1) requires a plaintiff bringing a deceptive or unfair trade practice claim to establish causation and actual damages.

Dolphin LLC v. WCI Communities, Inc. · filed 2013-05-01(1)

To state an FDUTPA claim, Dolphin must allege (1) a deceptive act or unfair trade practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages. Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). As the District Court pointed out, Dolphin made no allegation and presented no evidence that the allegedly misleading statement caused Dolphin’s claimed damages. Because Dolphin failed to establish one of the elements of its FDUTPA claim, WCI was entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Section 501.204(1) requires a deceptive or unfair practice, causation, and actual damages for a FDUTPA claim.

Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. · filed 2014-06-16(1)

I find that Reid has adequately stated a claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (“FDUT-PA”) Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). Such a FDUTPA claim has three elements: (1) a deceptive or unfair practice; (2) causation; (3) actual damages.

Section 501.204 permits a deceptive practices claim to proceed when evidence creates a triable dispute over whether the defendant made the alleged misrepresentations.

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC · filed 2015-11-18

Mr. Trump repeats that he is entitled to summary judgment on the FDUTPA claim because he did not personally make the alleged, core misrepresentations to Everett, nor did- Everett rely on the misrepresentations. (ECF No. 375-1 at 33-34.) The Court again finds Mr. Trump’s argument unpersuasive because there is a triable dispute.

Section 501.204(1) allows classwide proof of a FDUTPA claim when the alleged material misrepresentation was generally uniform across the class.

In re: Dial Complete Marketing · filed 2015-12-08(1)

Since there can be no real question that Dial made a purported “generally uniform material misrepresentation,” the court concludes that plaintiffs’ FDUTPA’s claim is capable of classwide proof.

An unfair-practices claim under § 501.204(1) need not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard when it does not sound in fraud.

Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc. · filed 2016-05-17(1)

Because the FDUTPA claim is premised on unfair acts and not on fraud, Plaintiffs need not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened standard.

A claim under section 501.204(1) requires proof of actual damages; an unsupported assertion of commercial injury does not suffice.

Spiral Direct, Inc. v. Basic Sports Apparel, Inc. · filed 2017-12-12(1)

While it is true that the USPTO denied Spiral Direct a registration for the SD Mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the Basic Mark, Spiral Direct failed to show that it has suffered actual damages.

A damages claim under section 501.204 fails without evidence of actual damages, even if the alleged conduct could be found deceptive or unfair.

Dragon Jade International, LTD v. Ultroid, LLC · filed 2020-09-29

In Counterclaim I, Ultroid alleges that Dragon Jade violated Fla. Stat. § 501.204, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (“FDUTPA”). ... Summary judgment on Count I is due to be granted because Ultroid has failed to establish actual damages.

A claim under § 501.204 based on alleged fraud must plead the fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).

DJ Lincoln Enterprises, Inc. v. Google, LLC · filed 2021-01-15(1)

Where a plaintiff’s FDUTPA claim rests on an alleged fraud, however, the plaintiff’s pleading must satisfy Rule 9(b). ... As explained above, the Amended Complaint does not satisfy Rule 9(b). Count 4 of the Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed.

A FDUTPA claim sounding in fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.

Hackler v. General Motors LLC · filed 2022-01-28(1)

This Court agrees with the first line of cases and finds that Rule 9(b) is the operative pleading standard for a FDUTPA claim if, as alleged here, it sounds in fraud.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; a claim under it must meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard when it sounds in fraud.

Smith v. REV Group, Inc. · filed 2023-02-09(1)

It seems to the undersigned that Rule 9(b)’s more stringent pleading requirements do not apply to all FDUTPA claims, only to those that sound in fraud. Here, the FDUTPA claim that Defendants marketed and advertised vehicles, including Plaintiffs’ Vehicle, through deceptive representations sounds in fraud and therefore must comply with Rule 9(b). The FDUTPA claim that Defendants failed to comply with the written warranty/service contract does not sound in fraud, and therefore need not comply with Rule 9(b).

Section 501.204 requires facts identifying an act or omission that could mislead consumers; a vague allegation of association with another business’s marks does not suffice.

American Mariculture, Inc. v. Syaqua Americas, Inc. · filed 2021-06-07

As with the Lanham Act, the Court finds that insufficient facts are provided for purposes of stating a plausible claim. More specifically, it is unclear what act or omission defendant committed to mislead consumers.

A § 501.204 claim based on fraud must plead affirmative misrepresentations with particularity or facts establishing a duty to disclose omitted information.

DJ Lincoln Enterprises, Inc. v. Google, LLC · filed 2021-07-21

In summary, to the extent that Plaintiff’s fraud claims rely on affirmative misrepresentations, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b). And to the extent that Plaintiff’s fraud claims rely on Defendant’s non-disclosure of information, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint fail to demonstrate that Defendant had a duty to disclose. Counts 4, 5, and 6 of the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A claim under § 501.204(1) survives dismissal when the complaint identifies the defendants’ allegedly deceptive advertisements and conduct interfering with customer contracts.

Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers, P.A. · filed 2021-08-11(1)

The Marketing Defendants move for dismissal of the FDUPTA claim arguing that the complaint fails to allege deceptive acts or practices attributable to each Defendant. (ECF No. 17 at 17.) This argument fails because it is premised on the Marketing Defendant’s arguments that they have not engaged in any fraudulent activity and rather their conduct is simply offering services to timeshare owners. (Id.) As explained throughout this order, this is not the case here. The complaint has thoroughly identified the actions taken by the Marketing Defendants that resulted in the allegedly false advertisements and that those actions interfered with Bluegreen’s timeshare contracts.

Section 501.204(1) prohibits unfair practices in trade or commerce; a complaint must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that such a practice occurred.

CoronaCide, LLC v. Wellness Matrix Group, Inc. · filed 2021-09-22(1)

Thus, CoronaCide does not plead sufficient factual content to allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Wellness Matrix and Todt engaged in unfair practices in the conduct of trade or commerce by using the “Defendants’ Deceptive CoronaCide Content.”

Section 501.204 claims require a deceptive act or unfair practice, causation, and actual damages.

Iverson, Larry v. J. David Tax Law, LLC · filed 2024-08-30

A claim under Fla. Stat. § 501.204 (the unfair-trade-practices act) also has three elements: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.

Section 501.204 requires a deceptive act or unfair practice, causation, and actual damages for a FDUTPA claim.

Shixiaolong · filed 2025-10-30

As to Count IV, the claim of Violation of the FDUTPA pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.204, Plaintiff must establish: “(1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.” Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

A claim under § 501.204 that sounds in fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.

Alin Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC · filed 2025-08-01(1)

After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree with the district court that Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement applies to FDUTPA claims that sound in fraud and that Pop’s complaint asserted such a claim.

Section 501.204(1) requires a FDUTPA plaintiff to plead causation; allegations that do not identify which plaintiffs saw which statements or when are insufficient.

Dawson · filed 2025-12-29(1)

Without allegations as to which plaintiffs viewed which statements, or when, the complaint fails to sufficiently allege the causation necessary for a FDUTPA claim.

Section 501.204(2) directs courts to give due consideration and great weight to FTC and federal court interpretations of § 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act.

Federal Trade Commission v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1999-12-14(2)

Florida’s claims for restitution under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) will be reinstated. That statute explicitly provides that “due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ...” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(2). Furthermore, the broad remedial language of the Florida Act suggests that the Florida Legislature intended to provide a full range of equitable monetary relief. See id. § 501.207. The Court will therefore reinstate Florida’s restitution claims on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasei-s.

Section 501.204(2) directs courts to give due consideration and great weight to FTC and federal court interpretations when deciding whether an act or practice is deceptive.

Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of Atty. Gen. · filed 2000-07-19(2)

Since FDUTPA is the state counterpart to the Federal Trade Commission Act, in deciding whether an act or practice may be deemed deceptive, we must give due consideration and great weight to the interpretations made by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts. See § 501.204(2); see also Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Rollins v. Heller, 454 So.2d at 584. ... When we measure Millennium's postcard advertisement against the FTC's more stringent standard for deceptiveness enunciated in Southwest Sunsites, we conclude that the Department failed to establish that these omissions were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.

Section 501.204(2) applies the federal objective standard to private deceptive trade practice actions, so a plaintiff need not prove actual reliance.

Davis v. Powertel, Inc. · filed 2000-12-29(2)

That is so because the question is not whether the plaintiff actually relied on the alleged deceptive trade practice, but whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances. ... In the absence of a more specific provision, therefore, we must assume that the instruction in section 501.204(2) to rely on federal interpretations applies to both public and private actions under Chapter 501.

Section 501.204 does not require a plaintiff to prove actual reliance; the practice must be likely to deceive a reasonable consumer in the same circumstances.

State Office of Atty. Gen. v. Wyndham Intern., Inc. · filed 2004-02-26(1)

When addressing a deceptive or unfair trade practice claim, the issue is not whether the plaintiff actually relied on the alleged practice, but whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances.

Section 501.204 directs courts assessing an unfair practice to give great weight to federal FTC interpretations, including whether consumers could reasonably avoid the injury and whether the practice provided countervailing benefits.

In Re Motions to Certify Classes · filed 2010-05-27(1)

The legislature mandated that in construing § 501.204(1), courts should give "due consideration and great weight" to the "interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(1) as of July 1, 2006." Fla. Stat. § 501.204(2). ... Each of these considerations counsels against certification of the proposed class. The plaintiffs are unable to show on a class-wide basis that the alleged injury was not "reasonably avoidable."

Section 501.204’s unfairness standard can require individual inquiry into whether customers could reasonably avoid a charge and whether they received countervailing benefits.

Adelson v. U.S. Legal Support, Inc. · filed 2010-05-27(1)

The legislature mandated that in construing § 501.204(1), courts should give “due consideration and great weight” to the “interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(1) as of July 1, 2006.” ... The plaintiffs are unable to show on a class-wide basis that the alleged injury was not “reasonably avoidable.” ... In addition, the “countervailing benefits to users” factor counsels against class certification.

Section 501.204 does not require a plaintiff to prove actual reliance on a deceptive representation.

Nelson v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. · filed 2010-11-01(1)

Moreover, as set forth above, Plaintiff need not have relied on the representations to prove a FDUTPA claim.

Section 501.204(1) does not require a consumer to prove actual reliance on a deceptive practice; the question is whether the practice was likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Moss v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2011-03-08(1)

Thus, in a FDUTPA action “the question is not whether the plaintiff actually relied on the alleged deceptive trade practice, but whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances.”

Section 501.204(2) directs use of an FTC Act causation standard that is broader than the Clayton Act’s proximate-cause requirement.

In Re Flonase Antitrust Litigation · filed 2011-07-14(2)

The other three UDTP statutes at issue are interpreted in accordance with Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 44-1522(C); Fla. Stat. § 501.204(2); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2(b). The causation requirement under the FTC Act is broader than that under the Clayton Act and does not require a showing "that the defendants' conduct proximately caused harm to consumers." ... Thus if Plaintiffs can show proximate causation under the Clayton Act standard, they necessarily show causation under the broader FTC Act standard.

Section 501.204(2) follows the FTC Act’s broader causation standard, which does not require proof that the defendant’s conduct proximately harmed consumers.

Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. · filed 2011-07-14(2)

The other three UDTP statutes at issue are interpreted in accordance with Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 44-1522(C); Fla. Stat. § 501.204(2); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2(b). The causation requirement under the FTC Act is broader than that under the Clayton Act and does not require a showing "that the defendants’ conduct proximately caused harm to consumers.”