Fla. Stat. § 501.204

Section 501.204(1) requires a consumer alleging an unfair trade practice to show that the injury could not reasonably have been avoided.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Diamond · filed 2014-06-11(1)

To prove an unfair trade practice, the class must prove that the injury caused by the allegedly unfair trade practice could not have been reasonably avoided by the consumers.

Section 501.204 prohibits deceptive trade practices; a deception claim requires evidence that the practice was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · filed 2024-01-03

Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence that a reasonable consumer interprets “natural” in the manner Plaintiffs allege. Therefore, there is no triable issue of fact as to deception. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ CLRA, FAL, UCL, FDUTPA, NYGBL, and breach of express warranty claims.

Section 501.204(2) does not require extrinsic evidence of consumer perception to create a jury question on whether an advertisement is deceptive.

Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co. · filed 2024-03-25(2)

And GBL and FDUTPA claims challenging deceptive advertisements have no extrinsic evidence requirement.

Section 501.204 does not cover claims arising from securities transactions.

Crowell v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Services, Co. · filed 2000-01-27(1)

In light of the foregoing, this Court believes that the Florida Supreme Court, if confronted with the question whether the DPTA applies to claims arising from securities transactions, would hold that it does not. Plaintiff has presented no evidence from the DPTA or state law that suggests Florida would not share this majority view. Thus, defendants’ motion to dismiss Count VI is granted.

Section 501.204 claims may proceed in Florida despite a contractual Virginia forum selection clause when requiring suit in Virginia would seriously undermine FDUTPA’s purpose and effectiveness.

America Online, Inc. v. Pasieka · filed 2004-01-29

As in Management Computer, the purpose and effectiveness of the FDUTPA would be seriously undermined if the claims here were required to be brought in Virginia.

Section 501.204 applies to unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce between commercial interests; a personal or household transaction is not required.

BEACON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT v. PNR, Inc. · filed 2004-11-10

We therefore conclude that the 1993 amendments to FDUTPA made clear that the statute is not limited to purely consumer transactions. It is now intended by its plain text to apply to any act or practice occurring "in the conduct of any trade or commerce " [e.s.] even as between purely commercial interests. § 501.204, Fla. Stat. (1993).

Section 501.204(1) allows a consumer injured by unfair practices in trade or commerce to bring a claim without a direct transaction with the defendant.

Williams v. Edelman · filed 2005-12-28(1)

Thus, accepting Defendants’ position would require an interpretation of the statute that would prohibit a plaintiff who has been injured by a defendant acting in “trade or commerce” from bringing a claim against the defendant because the parties have not directly transacted with each other. Neither the language of the statute, nor the case law, supports such a requirement.

Section 501.204(1) can cover alleged unfair or deceptive practices on a website that provides consumer information as a service.

Alvi Armani Medical, Inc. v. Hennessey · filed 2008-12-09(1)

Based on these and additional allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Defendants have engaged in “unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices” through “providing ... [a] ... service,” and that such allegations are sufficient to satisfy the “trade or commerce” language contained in FDUTPA and defeat dismissal.

Section 501.204(1) permits non-Florida residents to bring unfair trade practice claims arising from purchases in Florida.

In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation · filed 2009-07-30(1)

The Court holds that the FDUTPA may apply to the named plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to the reimbursement of purchases of Wellbutrin XL in Florida. The FDUTPA contains no language that would deny relief to either non-Florida residents, or limit its reach to only in-state plaintiffs or Florida businesses.

Section 501.204 allows out-of-state plaintiffs to bring claims when they allege injury in Florida.

In Re Flonase Antitrust Litigation · filed 2010-01-21

Thus, I predict that the Florida Supreme Court would hold that the FDUTPA allows claims by out-of-state plaintiffs.

Section 501.204(1) does not limit FDUTPA claims to harm occurring entirely within Florida when the purchases occurred in Florida.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC · filed 2010-09-07(1)

There is simply no language in the FDUTPA implying a limitation of its scope to harm taking place within Florida alone. Rather, the Act proscribes unfair and unconscionable business practices “in the conduct of any trade or commerce[.]” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). Therefore, I will deny GSK’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ FDUTPA claims.

Section 501.204(1) does not cover the filing of a hospital lien because pursuing a legal remedy is not conduct of trade or commerce.

Baker v. Baptist Hospital, Inc. · filed 2013-07-05(1)

We find that the filing of a hospital lien does not meet the definition of “trade or commerce” for purposes of chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, and AFFIRM the trial court’s order in this case.

Section 501.204(1) does not cover a school board’s assignment of a matrix of services score because that administrative act is not trade or commerce.

Montero ex rel. W.P.M. v. Duval County School Board · filed 2014-12-18(1)

The Board’s completing a matrix of services score form is not engaging in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of the FDUTPA.

Section 501.204(1)’s trade or commerce requirement covers providing lender placed insurance to borrowers even when the coverage benefits the lender.

Martorella v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2015-08-06(1)

Accordingly, as the Court found earlier when ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court finds again: the transactions at issue fall comfortably within the definition of trade or commerce because Defendants “provided, offered, or distributed” LPI.

Section 501.204(1) protects consumers outside Florida only when the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct occurs in Florida.

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. AAR Aircraft Services, Inc. · filed 2016-03-07(1)

The statute protects non-Florida consumers only when the alleged wrongful conduct occurred within the State of Florida.

Section 501.204 requires the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct to occur in trade or commerce; a mortgage servicer’s responses to regulators and credit reporting agencies did not meet that requirement.

Owens-Benniefield v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2017-06-15

Nor does Nationstar’s providing information to credit reporting agencies, or answering inquiries by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Florida Attorney General’s Office qualify as trade or commerce.

Section 501.204(1) does not cover an attempt to collect an unauthorized debt charge when the collection activity involves no good or service.

Cornette v. I.C. System, Inc. · filed 2017-11-30(1)

Plaintiff here has only alleged that Defendants attempted to collect a charge that was not expressly authorized by the contract, not that the charge was excessive or that Defendant charged Plaintiff for a service that was not performed. The bnly service provided in the instant case was the medical care MD Now rendered to Plaintiff, which was indisputably provided and for which Plaintiff does not contest the amount charged.

Section 501.204 covers alleged double billing for services as conduct in trade or commerce.

Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. Halifax Health, Inc. · filed 2018-03-02

In the instant case, the Plaintiff has alleged that Halifax double billed FHPI and 21st Century for the services provided-as opposed to, for example, an allegation that Halifax engaged in improper practices while attempting to collect someone else's debt. As such, the Court finds that Halifax's alleged conduct falls within the FDUTPA definition of "trade or commerce." The motion will be denied as to Count II.

Section 501.204(1) permits a claim based on unfair or deceptive practices without a violation of a predicate statute.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Performance Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery, LLC · filed 2017-09-25(1)

A FDUTPA claim does not necessarily require the violation of a predicate statute. ... The Court finds that Plaintiffs factual allegations establish traditional FDUTPA claims.

Section 501.204(1) requires proof of an unfair or deceptive practice that injured a consumer, even when the claimant is a business.

STEWART AGENCY, INC., d/b/a EARL STEWART TOYOTA OF NORTH PALM BEACH v. ARRIGO ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ARRIGO DODGE CHRYS · filed 2019-03-06(1)

First, there was no evidence that Arrigo committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice that injured a consumer.

Section 501.204(1) does not cover misconduct during legal representation because the practice of law is not trade or commerce.

Kurlander v. Kaplan · filed 2019-08-21(1)

These acts are not “in the conduct of any trade or commerce” within the definition of the statute and thus Plaintiffs’ FDUTPA claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 501.204 requires a FDUTPA claimant to plausibly allege injury or detriment to consumers, even if the claimant is not a consumer.

Beyond79, LLC -v- Express Gold Cash, Inc. · filed 2020-12-15(1)

However, as the court noted in Sandshaker Lounge, the fact that a non-consumer may now commence an action under FDUTPA does not change the fundamental requirement that a FDUTPA claimant plausibly allege injury or detriment to a consumer. ... Here, for reasons substantially similar to its analysis of Plaintiff’s General Business Law claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged consumer injury.

Section 501.204 permits a FDUTPA claim based on pleaded FDCPA and FCCPA violations involving deceptive or unfair conduct.

Salter v. PHH Mortgage Corp. · filed 2022-02-09(1)

Further, because Plaintiffs successfully plead violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA, their FDUTPA claim survives as well.

Section 501.204(1) likely requires allegations of intrastate conduct; allegations of intrastate effects can satisfy that requirement.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. · filed 2023-11-20(1)

Merck is correct that the consumer protection laws of these states likely require some allegation of intrastate conduct to state a claim. ... Plaintiff’s allegations of intrastate effects are therefore sufficient to support these consumer protection claims.

A claim under section 501.204 based solely on copying and distributing copyrighted materials is preempted when it adds no conduct distinct from copyright infringement.

The Escal Institute of Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Treadstone 71, LLC · filed 2024-09-11(1)

Those alleged acts are copying and distributing Treadstone 71’s course materials and creating derivative works of them—violations of the exclusive rights of section 106. ... Count 6 thus is not qualitatively different from the copyright infringement claim, and it is preempted. The Court will dismiss Count 6.

Section 501.204(1) addresses unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, providing a statutory basis for a claim distinct from related common law claims.

WS SSIR Owner, LLC v. South Seas Villas Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2024-12-13(1)

The FDUTPA violation provides statutory remedies to “anyone aggrieved” by “unfair 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), 501.211(1). Thus, the Court declines to dismiss the state law claims for this reason.

Section 501.204 can cover unfair or deceptive conduct occurring in Florida even when a related event occurs outside the state.

Smith v. Zoll Medical Corporation · filed 2025-03-31

Courts have construed FDUTPA to apply “only to action that occurred within the state of Florida,” but “the statute does not limit its protection to acts occurring exclusively in Florida.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Tyco Integrated Sec., LLC., 2015 WL 11251732, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2015) (collecting cases) (emphasis added).

Section 501.204 can cover conduct at Florida healthcare facilities even when patient information is stored on servers in another state.

Negron v. Ascension Health · filed 2025-09-23

In today’s digital age, the Court rejects the notion that the presence of that information on Ascension’s servers in Missouri would foreclose the Florida Plaintiffs’ home state claims.

Section 501.204(1) does not cover debt collection activities because they are not trade or commerce.

Zickafoose v. Upstart Network, Inc · filed 2025-10-09(1)

The FDUTPA does not apply to debt collection activities because debt collection activities are not considered “trade or commerce.”

Section 501.204(1) covers a single unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce, even when it involves only one party, transaction, or contract.

PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc. · filed 2003-03-13(1)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the FDUTPA applies to private causes of action arising from single unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of any trade or commerce, even if it involves only a single party, a single transaction, or a single contract.

Section 501.204 permits a deceptive trade practice claim when a real estate reservation form represents that a buyer can purchase a particular lot at a firm price but the seller later offers a different lot at a higher price.

Fendrich v. RBF, LLC · filed 2003-04-30(1)

When the reservation form, however, unequivocally represents that the consumer will be given the opportunity to purchase a particular lot or unit at a firm price, it can be likely to mislead.

Section 501.204 may cover obtaining a customer's signature on a contract that does not accurately reflect the parties' agreement.

Richards v. Luxury Imports of Palm Beach, Inc. · filed 2004-07-28

Obtaining the signature of a customer on a contract which does not accurately reflect the agreement between the parties could constitute a deceptive trade practice, § 501.204, Fla. Stat. (1995), as well as fraud.

Section 501.204(1) does not make an intentional breach of contract or intentional interference with that contract, without more, a deceptive or unfair trade practice.

Matrix Group Ltd. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. · filed 2007-02-20(1)

Matrix's complaint alleges that Rawlings violated the statute by intentionally breaching the contract and that K2 did so by intentionally causing Rawlings to breach the contract. These allegations are insufficient to state a claim under the statute.

Section 501.204 requires conduct underlying a contract breach to be independently unfair or deceptive to support a FDUTPA claim.

Rebman v. Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. · filed 2008-09-12

In order to assert proper FDUTPA claims, Brandner and Rebman must have shown that the acts underlying the breach of contract are, by themselves, unfair or deceptive. They have not done so here.

Section 501.204 does not treat an omission about a product’s fitness as unfair or deceptive when the contract expressly disclaims that fitness.

Medmoun v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2022-05-07

It follows then that a consumer could not act reasonably by relying on omissions where the omitted representation is expressly disclaimed by the contract.

Section 501.204(1) does not support an unfair or deceptive act claim based on representations expressly replaced by the parties’ written agreement.

JustTech, LLC v. Kaseya US LLC · filed 2023-08-28(1)

Plaintiff cannot depend on Defendant’s promotions of its software and services to demonstrate an unfair practice or deceptive act because the EULA expressly replaces all prior representations.