[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

To assert a claim for damages under FDUTPA, a plaintiff must establish:

1. A deceptive act or unfair practice;
2. Causation; and
3. Actual damages.

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']

To assert a claim for damages under FDUTPA, a plaintiff must establish:

1. A deceptive act or unfair practice;
2. Causation; and
3. Actual damages.

Fla. Stat. Ch. 501

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Soper v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 124 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. 2013).

First District: Waste Pro USA v. Vision Constr. ENT, Inc., 282 So. 3d 911, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Angelo v. Parker, 275 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); State v. Beach Blvd Auto. Fin., Inc., 139 So. 3d 380, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Baptist Hosp., Inc. v. Baker, 84 So. 3d 1200, 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Second District: Vintage Motors of Sarasota, Inc. v. Mac Enters. of N.C., 336 So. 3d 374, 378 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 290 So. 3d 1080, 1088 n.5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); TLO S. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Farms, Inc., 282 So. 3d 145, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Third District: Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc., 2024 WL 2947441, at *5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); Miami Auto. Retail, Inc. v. Baldwin, 97 So. 3d 846, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Kia Motors Am. Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Fourth District: Stuart Roofing, Inc. v. Thomas, 372 So. 3d 298, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Maroone Chevrolet, LLC v. Alvarado, 344 So. 3d 459, 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Point Conversions, LLC v. WPB Hotel Partners, LLC, 324 So. 3d 947, 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Arrigo Enters., 266 So. 3d 207, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Fifth District: KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Right Spinal Clinic, Inc., No. 23-11778, 2024 WL 4564168, at *9 (11th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024); Tershakovec v. Fort Motor Co., Inc., 79 F.4th 1299, 1311 (11th Cir. 2023); Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 17 F.4th 1084, 1097 (11th Cir. 2021); Alhassid v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 771 F. App’x. 965, 969 (11th Cir. 2019).

Southern District: In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exch. Collapse Litig., No. 1:23-MD-3076-KMM, 2025 WL 1341173, at *14 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2025); JustTech, LLC v. Kaseya US LLC, 2023 WL 5529845, at *27 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2023); Wound Care Concepts, Inc. v. Vohra Health Servs., P.A., 2021 WL 4990957, at *31 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2021); Healthcare Res. Mgmt. Group LLC v. Econatura All Healthy World, LLC, 2021 WL 4989941, at *53 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2021).

Middle District: Scheibel v. Grillakis, No. 6:23-CV-567-RBD-EJK, 2024 WL 3989776, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2024); McFalls v. NCH Healthcare Sys., 2024 WL 111920, at *6–7 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2024); Aventus Health, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc., 2023 WL 11724679, at *22 M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2023); Garrett-Alfred v. Facebook, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1142 (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Northern District: McCoy v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2024 WL 399480, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2024); Cummings v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2023 WL 3487005, at *6–7 (N.D. Fla. May 15, 2023); Keep Santa Rosa Beautiful Inc. v. Butterflies in Motion, Inc., 2022 WL 19078118, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2022); Thomas v. Generac Power Sys., 2020 WL 9602345, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 28 2020).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

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

(2) Statute of Limitations: Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3) (four years).

(3) An unfair practice has been defined as “one that offends established public policy and one that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So. 2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003).

(3) An act need not violate a specific rule or regulation to be considered deceptive under FDUTPA. State v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005).

(4) FDUPTA does not cover “act[s] or practice[s] required or specifically permitted by federal or state law.” Section 501.211(2), Fla. Stat.

(5) Damages, fees, or costs are not recoverable under Section 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. against a retailer who has, in good faith, engaged in the dissemination of claims of a manufacturer or wholesaler without actual knowledge that it violated this section.

(6) Although FDUTPA does not explicitly define the term “deception,” the provisions of the Act are to be “construed liberally.” Section 501.202, Fla. Stat.

(7) Courts have determined that a deceptive practice occurs when there is “a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.” Nuwer v. FCA U.S. LLC, 2023 WL 8698327, at *4–5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2023) (quoting PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So. 2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003); Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Right Spinal Clinic, Inc., No. 23-11778, 2024 WL 4564168, at *9 (11th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024)

.

(8) Because the courts employ an objective test to determine whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably, “[a] party asserting a deceptive trade practice claim need not show actual reliance on the representation or omission at issue.” Carriuolo v. GM Co., 823 FF.3d 977, 984 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)).

(9) In FDUTPA claims, “actual damages” have long been defined as “the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract of the parties.” E.g., Ounjian v. Globoforce, Inc., 89 F.4th 852, 860-61 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)).

(10) Consequential damages are not available under FDUPTA. E.g., City First Mortg. Corp. v. Barton, 988 So. 2d 82, 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (indicating consequential or special damages are not recoverable as “actual damages” under FDUTPA).

(11) “To state a claim for equitable relief, an entity must show: (1) that it is aggrieved, the injury claimed to have been, are being, or will be adversely affected, by (2) a violation of FDUTPA, meaning an unfair or deceptive practice which is injurious to consumers. Further, ‘for someone to be aggrieved, the injury claimed to have been suffered cannot be merely speculative.’” Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Arrigo Enters., 266 So. 3d 207, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

(12) “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.” PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So. 2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003).

(13) “To the extent an action giving rise to a breach of contract or breach of lease may also constitute an unfair or deceptive act, such a claim is and has always been cognizable under the FDUTPA.” PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So. 2d 773, 777 n.2 (Fla. 2003).

(14) FDUTPA is not applicable to cause of action alleging trademark infringement. Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Dynascan Corp., 38 F.3d 1161, 1182 n.7 (11th Cir. 1994).

(15) Arbitration clauses have repeatedly been held to apply to statutory claims, including FDUTPA. See, e.g., Great W. Fin. Sec., Corp. v. Grandison, 701 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (reversing the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to compel arbitration of statutory civil theft claim).

(16) FDUTPA applies to non-Florida residents if the offending conduct took place predominately or entirely in Florida. Felice v. Invicta Watch Co. of Am., Inc., 2017 WL 3336715, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2017).

(17) An uninsured patient’s allegations that she paid approximately six times what it cost a hospital to treat her was sufficient for unreasonable pricing claim against the hospital under FDUTPA. Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Fla. 2006).

[/MM_Access_Decision]