Florida TCPA Case Law
Key court decisions shaping telemarketing compliance in Florida
Total Decisions
9
Landmark (8+)
6
Notable (5-7)
3
Most Recent
Feb 2024
What These Cases Impact
Landmark Decisions (Score 8-10)
Braver v. Northstar Alarm Services LLC
S.D. Fla. · January 2023
Holding
A checkbox embedded in an online form's terms of service does not constitute valid prior express written consent under FTSA for automated telemarketing calls and texts. Consent under FTSA requires a clear, unambiguous, standalone affirmative act that specifically identifies: (1) the entity authorized to contact the consumer, (2) the type of contact authorized (calls, texts, or both), and (3) the automated nature of the communication. Burying consent language in a general terms acceptance form does not satisfy these requirements.
Plain English
The most-cited consent standard case in FL FTSA litigation. If your consent disclosure is anywhere near your Terms of Service or Privacy Policy, it is almost certainly invalid in Florida. Consent must be: standalone, specific (names your company), specific (identifies automated calls/texts), and an active affirmative act (not pre-checked). A checkbox that says "I agree to receive communications" is not consent for automated calls. Period. Rebuild your consent flows around this holding.
Toure v. Mavis Discount Tire
S.D. Fla. · March 2022
Holding
Automated text messages sent via a third-party marketing platform using stored contact lists satisfy the FTSA definition of an automated system even where the platform does not generate random or sequential telephone numbers. The fact that a human uploaded the contact list does not transform subsequent automated sending into a non-automated communication.
Plain English
If you use a marketing platform (HubSpot, Klaviyo, Salesforce Marketing Cloud, ActiveCampaign, etc.) to send texts to FL contacts, you are using an ATDS under FTSA. The platform automatically selects who gets each message and sends it — that is the automated system. A human uploading the list does not change the analysis. Every FL contact who has not given written consent for that platform to contact them is a potential plaintiff.
Keim v. ADF MidAtlantic LLC
S.D. Fla. · June 2020
Holding
Class certified for FTSA claims where defendant sent automated promotional text messages to thousands of Florida consumers without prior written consent. The court found that common questions predominated — specifically whether defendant had a policy of sending automated texts without written consent — making class treatment superior to individual actions. Numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy all satisfied.
Plain English
The case that makes plaintiffs' lawyers salivate. Class certified for FTSA SMS violations with common questions predominating because everyone on the list received the same unauthorized automated text. If you sent one unauthorized blast to 50,000 FL numbers, that's not 50,000 individual cases — it's one class action with $25 million in statutory damages. Class certification in FTSA cases is straightforward because the automated system either had consent or it did not, and that answer applies uniformly to the entire class.
Eldridge v. Pet Supermarket, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · May 2020
Holding
The FTSA does not require that an ATDS use random or sequential number generation. Any system capable of automatically selecting and dialing stored telephone numbers triggers the FTSA's written consent requirement. Defendant's SMS platform, which drew from a stored customer list and sent messages automatically, qualified as an automated system under FTSA regardless of whether a human initiated each individual message.
Plain English
Foundational FL case establishing FTSA's ATDS definition is far broader than the pre-Duguid federal standard — and even broader than what Duguid later rejected at the federal level. If your platform stores contacts and sends automatically, you are in ATDS territory in Florida. This case was decided before the 2021 FTSA amendment that codified this exact holding into statute, giving it dual authority: precedent AND statute.
Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC
11th Cir. · January 2020
Holding
The FTSA's definition of an automated dialing system encompasses equipment that automatically selects and dials stored telephone numbers, without requiring the random or sequential number generation that the federal TCPA (as later interpreted in Duguid) requires. The 11th Circuit affirmed that Florida's statutory ATDS definition is independently broader than the federal definition and must be analyzed separately from TCPA claims.
Plain English
The 11th Circuit's landmark ruling confirming FTSA operates independently of federal TCPA and applies its own, broader ATDS standard. The fact that a system is not a "TCPA ATDS" after Duguid provides ZERO protection against FTSA claims in Florida. Compliance attorneys frequently cite this case as establishing the bifurcated analysis: ask "does this violate TCPA?" then ask "does this SEPARATELY violate FTSA?" Both questions must be answered independently.
Cordoba v. DIRECTV LLC
11th Cir. · October 2019
Holding
Consent obtained through a third-party lead generator that bundled consent for multiple companies does not constitute valid prior express written consent for the specific defendant's telemarketing calls under TCPA (and by extension FTSA). Consent must be obtained specifically for the entity making the call — lead-bought consent naming "marketing partners" is legally insufficient.
Plain English
The precursor to the FCC's January 2025 one-to-one consent rule. This 11th Circuit case established years before the FCC rule that bundled consent for "marketing partners" does not count. If you bought a lead list where the consent form said "you may be contacted by partners," that consent is not valid for your calls. Each company needs its own, specific consent. The FCC's 2025 rule codified this at the federal level; Cordoba already applied it in FL through the 11th Circuit.
Notable Decisions (Score 5-7)
Turizo v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust
Southern District of Florida · August 2023
Holding
FTSA applies to text message marketing campaigns. Per-text damages available under Florida mini-TCPA.
Plain English
Court applied FTSA to text marketing campaigns, confirming per-text damages under Florida mini-TCPA.
Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank
Southern District of Florida · May 2023
Holding
FTSA stricter calling hours (8AM-8PM) enforceable. Federal TCPA does not preempt state time restrictions.
Plain English
Confirmed FTSA 8AM-8PM calling hours are enforceable and not preempted by federal TCPA 8AM-9PM window.
FL AG v. Tele Circuit Network Corp.
Florida Circuit Court · February 2024
Holding
Florida AG obtained $2.3M settlement for FTSA violations involving unregistered telemarketing and DNC violations.
Plain English
FL AG $2.3M settlement for unregistered telemarketing and DNC violations under FTSA.
Stay Current
Weekly digest: what changed this week
New enforcement actions, statute updates, and rule changes in Florida — delivered once a week.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Powered by Brevo.
Need help getting compliant?
Case law changes what's legal faster than most compliance teams can track. Catalyst Partners monitors Florida decisions and updates your operations accordingly.
Book a Compliance Call →This is a compliance reference tool, not legal advice. Data compiled from public statutes, LegiScan, CourtListener, state AG offices, and AI-assisted analysis. Verify all information with qualified counsel before relying on it. Full terms & data sources →