Client Alerts & Insights
Amendment to Florida Law May Create “Mini-TCPA” and Impose Heightened Restrictions on Businesses
June 23, 2021
Authored By:
Litigants spent years fighting over the definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). That fight culminated in this year’s big ATDS defense win in the Supreme Court’s Facebook v. Duguid case, which set forth a narrow definition of an ATDS under the TCPA, requiring the use of a random or sequential number generator.
This win may be relatively short-lived. Effective July 1, 2021, Florida is set to amend its existing telephone solicitation laws to effectively upend the Facebook decision in the State of Florida. The revised law, which was introduced in February 2021 before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Facebook, sweeps in a wide array of dialing technology and brings into the fold a private right of action and statutory damages.
Florida’s newly amended law will include the following critical provisions:
- Autodialer: The statute does not include a definition of an autodialer, but instead applies to “automated system[s] for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed.”
- Written Consent: The statute imposes a written consent standard from the “called party” analogous to the federal requirement.
- “Called party”: Specifies that the “called party” is only the “regular user” of the phone (unlike the federal standard, which also includes the subscriber to the phone).
- Telephonic Sales Calls: The law applies, in relevant part, to telephonic sales calls
- Defined as “a telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission to a consumer for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services, soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services, or obtaining information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension of credit for such purposes”
- Requires written consent for telephonic sales calls
- Private Right of Action: Allows for an aggrieved party statutory damages up to $500 (which can be trebled for willful violations)
Florida’s existing telephone solicitation law already included the same “autodialer” language. However, it is the new law’s introduction of the written consent requirement and statutory damages that makes this law so troublesome. In sum, solicitation and telemarketing calls and text messages in Florida will require written consent. Whether the dialer meets the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s definition of an ATDS will likely become less of an issue, if not a non-issue.
With these amendments, Florida will almost certainly become ground zero for a telemarketing class actions involving en masse dialing or transmissions. The critical issue moving forward will likely be what is needed for a complaining party to be “aggrieved” under the statutory damages provision. It is certainly unclear whether any recipient of a call is automatically “aggrieved.”
Finally, the Florida’s amendments include a number of ancillary provisions. For example, the law restricts the hours in which a telephonic sales call can be placed, from a 8 am to 8 pm (previously calls could be made until 9 pm) and makes it unlawful to place more than three telephone solicitation calls from any number to a person over a 24-hour period on the same subject matter or issue, regardless of the phone number used to make the call. The law also includes anti-spoofing provisions. These anti-spoofing provisions prohibit “deliberately display[ing] a different caller identification number … to conceal the true identity of the caller,” are broader than federal law, and includes criminal penalties.
These changes will substantially impact businesses that solicit in Florida or communicate with consumers with Florida area codes. As of the date of this publication, it does not appear that Gov. DeSantis has signed the bill. However, all impacted businesses should be prepared for the revised Act to go in effect as of July 1, 2021 absent a veto from Gov. DeSantis.
Questions? Contact a member of Benesch’s TCPA Practice Group.
Suzanne M. Alton de Eraso at saltondeeraso@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4977.
Mark S. Eisen at meiesn@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4956.
David M. Krueger at dkrueger@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4683.
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.