[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. The plaintiff has been the object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt;
2. The defendant is a person attempting to collect the consumer debt; and
3. The defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FCCPA.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. The plaintiff has been the object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt;
2. The defendant is a person attempting to collect the consumer debt; and
3. The defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FCCPA.

Fla. Stat. Ch. 559.541-548.

The elements of an FCCPA claim are nearly identical to the elements of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim. The first prong is substantially identical to the FDCPA, as the FCCPA only applies to consumer debt. The second prong differs from the FDCPA in that the FCCPA prohibits the acts of “persons” and, accordingly, is not limited to “debt collectors.” The third prong requires an act or omission prohibited by the FCCPA. In addition to these elements, several subsections of §559.72 require an allegation of knowledge or intent by the defendant in order to state a cause of action. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Foxx, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1114 (M.D. Fla. 2013); see also Helman v. Bank of Am., 685 F. App’x 723, 726–27 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The FCCPA applies to anyone who attempts to collect a consumer debt . . . unlike the FDCPA . . . .”); Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254, 1258 n.3 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he FDCPA does not apply to all creditors; it applies only to professional debt-collectors . . . .”).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Lab. Corp. of Am. v. Davis, 339 So. 3d 318, 321 (Fla. 2022).

First District: Korkmas v. Onyx Creative Grp., 298 So. 3d 690, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Kelly v. Duggan, 282 So. 3d 969, 971–72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Morgan v. Wilkins, 74 So. 3d 179, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Second District: Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare Inc., 281 So. 3d 1259, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Gann v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 145 So. 3d 906, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Fourth District: Colombo v. Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, 341 So. 3d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Schauer v. GMAC, 819 So. 2d 809, 811–12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Fifth District: Williams v. Salt Springs Resort Ass’n., 298 So. 3d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Medley v. Dish Network, LLC, 958 F.3d 1063; 1068 (11th Cir. 2020).

Southern District: Rivera v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 23-61138-CIV, 2025 WL 1363280, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 12, 2025); Roche v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., 2020 WL 1452346, at *29–30 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020); Ali v. LH Alliance, Inc., 2019 WL 3997124, at *8–9 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2019); Negron v. Citimortgage Inc., 2017 WL 1319563, at *16 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2017).

Middle District: Harb v. Westlake Services LLC, 748 F. Supp. 3d 1170, 1188-1189 (M.D. Fla. 2024); Denning v. Mankin Law Grp., P.A., 2022 WL 3365273, at *30–31 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2022); Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282, 1290 (M.D. Fla. 2017); Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Foxx, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1114 (M.D. Fla. 2013).

Northern District: Frazier v. Impact Rto Fla., LLC, 2019 WL 13020835, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2019); Kelly v. Davis, 2014 WL 12515345, at *19 (N.D. Fla. July 17, 2014).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: Within two years after the date the alleged violation occurred. Fla. Stat. § 559.77(4).

(3) A person may not be held liable in any action brought under this section if the person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error, notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. Babani v. Broward Auto, 348 So. 3d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

(4) The statute provides that in applying and construing this section, due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Fla. Stat. §559.77(4); e.g., Schulte v. Newrez LLC, 2023 WL 6407601, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2023); Harb v. Westlake Services LLC, 748 F. Supp. 3d 1170, 1188 (M.D. Fla. 2024).

(5) For FCCPA to apply to a transaction, the obligation must meet the definition of “debt” under section 559.55(6), which states: “‘Debt’ or ‘consumer debt’ means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.” Fla. Stat § 559.77(6); e.g., Korkmas v. Onyx Creative Grp., 298 So. 3d 690, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

(6) A claim under section 559.72(5) has three elements: (1) there was a disclosure of information to a person other than a member of plaintiff’s family; (2) the person did not have a legitimate business need for the information; and (3) the information affected plaintiff’s reputation. Fla. Stat. § 559.72(5); Heard v. Mathis, 344 So. 2d 651, 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

(7) A claim under section 559.72(9) has three elements: “an illegitimate debt, a threat or attempt to enforce that debt, and knowledge that the debt is illegitimate.” Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare Inc., 281 So. 3d 1259, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)

(8) Any person who fails to comply with any provision of s. 559.72 is liable for actual damages and for additional statutory damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000, together with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff. In determining the defendant’s liability for any additional statutory damages, the court shall consider the nature of the defendant’s noncompliance with s. 559.72, the frequency and persistence of the noncompliance, and the extent to which the noncompliance was intentional. Fla. Stat. §559.77(2).

(9) A court may award punitive damages if the plaintiff can establish malicious intent. Fla. Stat. §559.77(2); e.g., Tallahassee Title Co. v. Dean, 411 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

(10) A court may provide such equitable relief as if deems necessary or proper, including enjoining the defendant from further violations of the FCCPA. Fla. Stat. §559.77(3).

(11) In a class action lawsuit brought under this section the court may award additional statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each named plaintiff and an aggregate award of additional statutory damages of up to the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the defendant’s net worth for all remaining class members; however, the aggregate award may not provide an individual class member with additional statutory damages in excess of $1,000. Fla. Stat. §559.77(3).

[/MM_Access_Decision]