Florida Statute 501.976 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 501
CONSUMER PROTECTION

View Entire Chapter

501.976 Actionable, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices.—It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice, actionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for a dealer to:

(1) Represent directly or indirectly that a motor vehicle is a factory executive vehicle or executive vehicle unless such vehicle was purchased directly from the manufacturer or a subsidiary of the manufacturer and the vehicle was used exclusively by the manufacturer, its subsidiary, or a dealer for the commercial or personal use of the manufacturer’s, subsidiary’s, or dealer’s employees.

(2) Represent directly or indirectly that a vehicle is a demonstrator unless the vehicle complies with the definition of a demonstrator in s. 320.60(3).

(3) Represent the previous usage or status of a vehicle to be something that it was not, or make usage or status representations unless the dealer has correct information regarding the history of the vehicle to support the representations.

(4) Represent the quality of care, regularity of servicing, or general condition of a vehicle unless known by the dealer to be true and supportable by material fact.

(5) Represent orally or in writing that a particular vehicle has not sustained structural or substantial skin damage unless the statement is made in good faith and the vehicle has been inspected by the dealer or his or her agent to determine whether the vehicle has incurred such damage.

(6) Sell a vehicle without fully and conspicuously disclosing in writing at or before the consummation of sale any warranty or guarantee terms, obligations, or conditions that the dealer or manufacturer has given to the buyer. If the warranty obligations are to be shared by the dealer and the buyer, the method of determining the percentage of repair costs to be assumed by each party must be disclosed. If the dealer intends to disclaim or limit any expressed or implied warranty, the disclaimer must be in writing in a conspicuous manner and in lay terms in accordance with chapter 672 and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act.

(7) Provide an express or implied warranty and fail to honor such warranty unless properly disclaimed pursuant to subsection (6).

(8) Misrepresent warranty coverage, application period, or any warranty transfer cost or conditions to a customer.

(9) Obtain signatures from a customer on contracts that are not fully completed at the time the customer signs or which do not reflect accurately the negotiations and agreement between the customer and the dealer.

(10) Require or accept a deposit from a prospective customer prior to entering into a binding contract for the purchase and sale of a vehicle unless the customer is given a written receipt that states how long the dealer will hold the vehicle from other sale and the amount of the deposit, and clearly and conspicuously states whether and upon what conditions the deposit is refundable or nonrefundable.

(11) Add to the cash price of a vehicle as defined in s. 520.02(2) any fee or charge other than those provided in that section and in rule 69V-50.001, Florida Administrative Code. All fees or charges permitted to be added to the cash price by rule 69V-50.001, Florida Administrative Code, must be fully disclosed to customers in all binding contracts concerning the vehicle’s selling price.

(12) Alter or change the odometer mileage of a vehicle.

(13) Sell a vehicle without disclosing to the customer the actual year and model of the vehicle.

(14) File a lien against a new vehicle purchased with a check unless the dealer fully discloses to the purchaser that a lien will be filed if purchase is made by check and fully discloses to the buyer the procedures and cost to the buyer for gaining title to the vehicle after the lien is filed.

(15) Increase the price of the vehicle after having accepted an order of purchase or a contract from a buyer, notwithstanding subsequent receipt of an official price change notification. The price of a vehicle may be increased after a dealer accepts an order of purchase or a contract from a buyer if:

(a) A trade-in vehicle is reappraised because it subsequently is damaged, or parts or accessories are removed;

(b) The price increase is caused by the addition of new equipment, as required by state or federal law;

(c) The price increase is caused by the revaluation of the United States dollar by the Federal Government, in the case of a foreign-made vehicle;

(d) The price increase is caused by state or federal tax rate changes; or

(e) Price protection is not provided by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor.

(16) Advertise the price of a vehicle unless the vehicle is identified by year, make, model, and a commonly accepted trade, brand, or style name. The advertised price must include all fees or charges that the customer must pay, including freight or destination charge, dealer preparation charge, and charges for undercoating or rustproofing. State and local taxes, tags, registration fees, and title fees, unless otherwise required by local law or standard, need not be disclosed in the advertisement. When two or more dealers advertise jointly, with or without participation of the franchisor, the advertised price need not include fees and charges that are variable among the individual dealers cooperating in the advertisement, but the nature of all charges that are not included in the advertised price must be disclosed in the advertisement.

(17) Charge a customer for any predelivery service required by the manufacturer, distributor, or importer for which the dealer is reimbursed by the manufacturer, distributor, or importer.

(18) Charge a customer for any predelivery service without having printed on all documents that include a line item for predelivery service the following disclosure: “This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing documents related to the sale.”

(19) Fail to disclose damage to a new motor vehicle, as defined in s. 319.001(9), of which the dealer had actual knowledge, if the dealer’s actual cost of repairs exceeds the threshold amount, excluding replacement items.

In any civil litigation resulting from a violation of this section, when evaluating the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees to a private person, the trial court shall consider the amount of actual damages in relation to the time spent.

History.—s. 29, ch. 2001-196; s. 4, ch. 2002-4; s. 1, ch. 2002-54; s. 19, ch. 2002-235; s. 7, ch. 2003-269; s. 139, ch. 2008-4; s. 43, ch. 2008-176.

F.S. 501.976 on Google Scholar

F.S. 501.976 on CourtListener

Amendments to 501.976

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 501.976

Total Results: 12 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 592 F.3d 1119 (11th Cir. 2010).

Cited 96 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 49 Communications Reg. (P&F) 141, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 79, 2010 WL 6745

...Servs., Inc. v. Burger, 792 So.2d 617, 621, 624 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2001)). 51 it “effectively prevents consumers with small, individual claims based upon motor vehicle dealers’ violations of section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), from vindicating their statutory rights under FDUTPA.” Id....

...successful FDUTPA claim arising out of a motor vehicle dealer’s violation of the statute could recover only the attorney’s fees that were reasonable in light of the individual’s actual damages. Id. at 606 (citing the attorney’s fees provision in Fla. Stat. § 501.976)....

Copy

Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2011).

Cited 27 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16811, 2011 WL 3505016

...litigation -- they claim that Concepcion is not implicated here. Appellant Supp. Br. at 15-18; Appellant Supp. Reply at 9-10. Neither argument is successful. because, absent class procedures, individuals asserting successful FDUTPA claims against automobile dealers under Fla. Stat. § 501.976, which limits a prevailing consumer’s attorney fee award to an amount that is “reasonable[]” in light of actual damages, would receive inadequate fee awards, given the individually small nature of the claims), and Powertel, 743 So....

Copy

SDS Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4145222

...charged each named plaintiff $379.70 (the fee) as either an "administrative and documentary fee" or as "administrative and state fees" in connection with each vehicle the appellees acquired. The complaints allege that Brumos and S.D.S. violated FDUTPA by failing to disclose the true nature of the fee as required by sections 501.976(11) and 501.976(18), Florida Statutes (2005), and seek, among other things, injunctive relief and money damages under FDUTPA....

...n waivers in the two leases we have to consider violate public policy by hampering important remedial purposes of FDUTPA, because they are designed to prevent individuals with small claims arising out of a motor vehicle dealer's alleged violation of section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), from seeking remedies as a class....

...ffectiveness of the FDUTPA would be seriously undermined if the claims here were required to be brought in Virginia"). We now hold that a contractual provision precluding class relief for small but numerous claims against motor vehicle dealers under section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), impermissibly frustrates the remedial purposes of FDUTPA. V. Although prevailing parties in FDUTPA actions may recover attorney's fees and costs, [11] an individual asserting a successful FDUTPA claim arising out of a motor vehicle dealer's violation of section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), may recover only such attorney's fees as are reasonable in light of the amount of the individual's actual damages. See § 501.976, Fla....

...ats a remedial purpose of FDUTPA"). Where, as in the present case, the amount of an individual consumer's actual damages is small and attorney's fees are limited as a result, FDUTPA's private enforcement scheme cannot effectively deter violations of section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), if consumers are prevented from seeking relief as a class....

...Courts have not invalidated every arbitration provision precluding consumers from seeking class-wide vindication of every statutory claim. [12] But our own precedent requires nothing less in the case of numerous, small claims brought against motor vehicle dealers under section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...bitrate on an individual basis but which allegedly involve "a large sum of money" when considered collectively. VI. Disallowing class relief effectively prevents consumers with small, individual claims based upon motor vehicle dealers' violations of section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), from vindicating their statutory rights under FDUTPA....

...vidual consumers to bring their small-value claims" even though the CPA contained no class action antiwaiver provision). But see Fonte, 903 So.2d at 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding arbitration clause's preclusion of class relief in a case where section 501.976 had no application does not defeat FDUTPA's remedial purposes, in part because "neither the text nor our review of the legislative history of FDUTPA suggests that the legislature intended to confer a non-waivable right to class representation"); Johnson v....

...violations of the act. See § 501.208, Fla. Stat. (2005). These procedures concededly contemplate relief for more than one individual consumer at a time. See Fonte, 903 So.2d at 1025 (enforcing arbitration clause's bar on class representation in non-section 501.976 context in part because public enforcement authority FDUTPA provides "presents an added deterrent effect *610 to violators if private enforcement actions should fail to fulfill that role" and "gives another possible avenue of recovery for consumers")....

...Reflecting this realityand against the backdrop of class action availabilitythe Act created a private cause of action for consumers aggrieved by FDUTPA violations. See § 501.211(1),(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Given the restrictions on individual attorney's fee awards under section 501.976, to preclude class treatment of consumers' claims would distort the statutory scheme, undermine FDUTPA's private enforcement mechanisms and often make relief the statute contemplates unavailable, as a practical matter....

...In enacting FDUTPA, the Legislature was necessarily aware of class actions' role in deterring future FDUTPA violations by effectively redressing past violations, see Am. Online, Inc., 870 So.2d at 171-72; Davis, 776 So.2d at 975, a role that has special importance when section 501.976's restrictions on attorney's fees apply. We hold that, regardless of forum, FDUTPA plaintiffs may not be precluded from seeking class relief under section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...onscionable). [16] *611 IX. In sum, we conclude that the contractual provisions at issue here which purport to prohibit consumers from pursuing class relief for small but numerous claims against motor vehicle dealers based upon alleged violations of section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), are irreconcilably at odds with the remedial purposes of FDUTPA, contrary to the public policy of this state, and unenforceable for that reason....

...Co., 423 So.2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). [2] Those who suffer loss as a result of a violation of the Act may recover actual damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. See § 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). In awarding attorney's fees to FDUTPA plaintiffs who prevail under Section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), courts must take into account "the amount of actual damages in relation to the time spent." § 501.976, Fla....

...ed in part on the clause's preclusion of class remedies in finding the contract substantively unconscionable. See Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So.2d 570, 576-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In the present case, however, where attorney's fees are limited by section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), we conclude that the arbitration provisions' preclusion of class relief violates the public policy of the state....

Copy

State v. Beach Blvd Auto., Inc., 139 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 2040853, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7574

...In Count 3, Appellant alleged a FDUTPA violation, asserting that Appellees deceived their customers by adding a pre-delivery inspection (“PDI”) fee to the price of their vehicles without disclosing the nature and purpose of the fee and without providing the proper disclosures, an alleged violation of sections 501.976(11) and (18), Florida Statutes. In Count 4, Appellant alleged a FDUTPA violation, asserting that Appel-lees kept their customers’ deposits or binders without adequate disclosure, an alleged violation of section 501.976(10), Florida Statutes....

...it language used by Appellees complied with the pertinent statutes. Appellant’s counsel argued that the “binder stamp” did not give consumers a clear and conspicuous statement as to when a deposit was refundable or nonrefundable as required by section 501.976, Florida Statutes....

...stomer is given a written receipt that states how long the dealer will hold the vehicle from other sale and the amount of the deposit, and clearly and conspicuously states whether and upon which conditions the deposit is refundable or nonrefundable. § 501.976(10), Fla....

...While the stamp that was included in Exhibit K to the amended complaint set forth that Appellee BBA agreed to hold a vehicle until a certain date for a “non refundable binder,” Appellant alleged in its amended complaint that the stamp did not fully satisfy section 501.976(10) because it did not clearly and conspicuously state whether and upon what conditions the deposit was refundable or nonrefundable....

Copy

Miami Auto. Retail, Inc. v. Baldwin, 97 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2402152, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10389

...) by failing to give her a refund for the difference between the estimated payoff amount on her trade-in and the actual amount Brickell Honda paid. On September 30, 2009, Ms. Baldwin filed a motion seeking class certification under sections 501.201, 501.976(9), and 501.976(11), Florida Statutes (2008), and to serve as the class representative. Section 501.201 et seq., is the more generalized section regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, whereas section 501.976 specifically addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving vehicles. Section 501.976, titled “Actionable, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices,” provides in relevant part as follows: It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice, actionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for a dealer...

...All fees or charges permitted to be added to the cash price by rule 69V-50.001, Florida Administrative Code, must be fully disclosed to customers in all binding contracts concerning the vehicle’s selling price. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied certification under sections 501.201 and 501.976(9), but granted certification under section 501.976(11) as follows: All individuals and entities that purchased an automobile from Brickell Honda where: 1) an automobile encumbered by a lien was “traded-in” in the transaction; 2) the dealer overestimated the lien payoff on the trad...

...In the order certifying the class, the trial court appointed Ms. Baldwin as class representative, disqualified Ms. Baldwin’s husband from serving as class counsel, and appointed counsel to represent the class. Brickell Honda appeals the order certifying the class under section 501.976(11); Ms. Baldwin has not appealed the denial of class certification under sections 501.201 and 501.976(9)....

...the cases for each of the [class members] ... [and] [i]f they cannot, a class should not be certified.” Kia Motors, 985 So.2d at 1136 ; accord InPhyNet, 33 So.3d at 771 . Ms. Baldwin contends that because the trial court certified the class under section 501.976(11), the communications between Brickell Honda and Ms. Baldwin; Brickell Honda’s representations to Ms. Baldwin; and Ms. Baldwin’s representations to Bric-kell Honda, are irrelevant. Ms. Baldwin claims the only relevant issues under section 501.976(11) are whether Brickell Honda overestimated the lien payoff and whether Brickell Honda refunded the overestimated amount. Thus, Ms. Baldwin argues that no individualized issues exist. We respectfully disagree. We begin with the statute itself. Section 501.976(11) provides that it is a FDUTPA violation to: Add to the cash price of a vehicle as defined in s....

...And, as the trial court correctly concluded, Ms. Baldwin “did not satisfy the Court’s concerns regarding the need for individualized inquiry with respect to the other claims against [Brickell Honda] [in other words, her section 501.201 et seq. and section 501.976(9) claims], due to the need for each putative class member to testify as to them individual experience with [Brickell Honda].” Such individualized factual determinations defeat the predominance requirement....

...r subsequent actions will be necessary to prove or disprove whether Brickell Honda’s actions were deceptive. See Egwuatu, 976 So.2d at 53-54 . Ms. Baldwin cannot cure the lack of predominance even as to claims that rely upon the portion of FDUTPA, section 501.976(11), that penalizes the absence of certain written elements in an automobile sales contract....

Copy

Michael T. Angelo d/b/a Orange Park Auto Mall v. Timothy Parker, individually & on behalf of those similarly situated, 275 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...The court denied both defense motions and certified the class under all three subsections of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b). The Dealership appeals. 1 FDUTPA includes a subsection addressing unfair or deceptive acts or practices by automobile dealers related to the sale of motor vehicles. § 501.976, Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 501.976(11), Florida Statutes (2016), specifically requires disclosure of all fees or charges added to the cash price of the sale of a vehicle. 3 Analysis We review an order granting class certification for an abuse of discretion....

Copy

Sanchez v. AN Luxury Imports of Pembroke Pines, Inc., 216 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 1364000, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5057

...ated to appellant’s various unsuccessful claims. The expert further testified that he charged just $300 per hour—not $450 per hour—despite his twenty-five years of experience with this type of litigation. Defendants’ counsel pointed out that section 501.976, which is the FDUTPA attorney’s fees statute specifically governing vehicles, mandates the trial court to consider “the amount of actual damages in relation to the time spent” in determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee award....

...consuming issue in the case, because he obtained the $3,500 damage award on one of his FDUT-PA claims. The court found that “the fee [was] almost entirely contingent other than the initial $2,000.00 retainer” and that under sections 501.2105 and 501.976, the “amount of time actually spent was grossly disproportional” to the $3,500 damage award....

...l case. (3) The trial judge may award the prevailing party the sum of reasonable costs incurred in the action plus a reasonable legal fee for the hours actually spent on the case as sworn to in an affidavit. § 501.2105, Fla. Stat, (2010). Moreover, section 501.976, in pertinent part, specifies a proportionality element to evaluating the reasonableness of attorney’s fees awards in successful FDUTPA actions against motor vehicle dealers: In any civil litigation resulting from a violation of this section, when evaluating the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees to a private person, the trial court shall consider the amount of actual damages in relation to the time spent. § 501.976, Fla....

Copy

Esther Babani v. Broward Auto., Inc. d/b/a Audi Ft. Lauderdale (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...Customer leased a vehicle and signed two documents. One document was a Retail Lease Order, and the other document was the actual lease. The Retail Lease Order contained a pre-delivery service charge of $798. Immediately underneath the charge appeared the language required by section 501.976(18), Florida Statutes (2019), known as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”): “This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and p...

Copy

Maroone Chevrolet, LLC d/b/a Maroone Chevrolet v. German Alvarado (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...Truck”). Alvarado brought his claims in four separate but related counts: 1) violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) section 501.201 pertaining to both trucks; 2) violation FDUTPA section 501.976 on the Second Truck; 3) violation of the Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act section 520.08 on the First Truck and violation of section 520.07 on the Second Truck; and 4) fraud in the inducemen...

...Within a few months, Alvarado traded in the Second Truck towards the purchase of another vehicle at another dealership. 1 The jury found Maroone did not violate section 501.201 on the First Truck and, therefore, awarded no damages on the First Truck under Count 1. The jury awarded damages for the Second Truck under section 501.976 for Alvarado’s claim in Count 2 but awarded no damages related to the Second Truck from Alvarado’s claim under section 501.201 in Count 1. 2 Alvarado claimed that he asked for Maroone to return his $12,000.00 down payment and oth...

...on both trucks, a violation of sections 520.08 and 520.07 on the First and Second Truck, respectively, and fraud in the inducement. The jury returned a verdict, finding Maroone: (1) did not violate section 501.201 on the First Truck but had violated section 501.976 on the Second Truck, awarding Alvarado $6,768.76; (2) willfully violated section 520.08 by charging above the finance charge limit on the First Truck, awarding Alvarado $1,858.85; (3) willfull...

...Truck but did fraudulently induce him to buy the Second Truck, awarding Alvarado $7,000.00. Those damages totaled $15,924.78. With prejudgment interest added, the trial court set the final judgment award at $31,976.43. This appeal followed. The Section 501.976 Claim Maroone first argued Alvarado was not entitled to damages for his claim in Count 2 under section 501.976 on the Second Truck because the $6,768.76 awarded by the jury was for “consequential damages” and not “actual damages” recoverable under the statute....

Copy

Gina Signor v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: Sep 15, 2022

...ing rebates, negotiations, or ambiguity in an advertisement.” Ap- pellant’s Br. at 43. But Florida law requires that an advertised price include all fees and charges except for registration and title fees, tags, and taxes. See Fla. Stat. § 501.976(16)....

Copy

Cabrera v. Haims Motors, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

Published | District Court, S.D. Florida

...ctice, but whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances." Gold Coast Racing, Inc. v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , No. 05-61931-CIV, 2006 WL 4579688 , at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2006). 1. Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (16)....

...Under FDUTPA's dealer provisions, the "advertised price must include all fees or charges that the customer must pay, including ... dealer preparation charge .... State and local taxes, tags, registration fees, and title fees ... need not be disclosed in the advertisement." Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (16)....

...The advertisement for the 2015 Infiniti has not been produced by the parties. 5 Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant accurately disclosed the price of the 2015 Infiniti in its online advertisement. 6 2. Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18) Plaintiff next argues that Defendant violated FDUPTA because it did not make the necessary disclosures under Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18) in regards to the $47.95 DMV E-File fee....

...hat include a line item for predelivery service the following disclosure: "This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing documents related to the sale." Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18)....

...Viquez was not sure what portion of the DMV E-File fee gets disbursed to the tag agency or how it is disbursed, see Id. at 93-94, 100 , it is likely that the DMV E-File fee was a charge representing a cost or profit to Defendant for a service relating to the sale of the 2015 Infiniti. 7 See Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18). The RPA is the only document in the record that includes a line item for the DMV E-File fee. See ECF No. [44-3]. The RPA, however, does not contain the disclosure as mandated by Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18)....

...Because Defendant charged Plaintiff a $47.95 fee for the handling and shipping of the title and registration of the 2015 Infiniti, but failed to include the required disclosure in the line item for the fee in the RPA, Defendant has violated Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18) as a matter of law....

...Thus, the Court declines to enter summary judgment on the corresponding FCCPA violation. The Court has found, however, that Plaintiff did not receive a refund for the amount that he was overcharged for the titling and registering of the 2015 Infiniti, and that Defendant failed to provide the disclosure under Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18) when including the DMV E-File fee in the RPA....

...CONCLUSION A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the contents and representations made by Defendant in its online advertisement of the price of the 2015 Infiniti purchased by Plaintiff. Thus, summary judgment is not proper as it pertains to Defendant's alleged violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (16), along with the corresponding FCCPA claim....

...advertised price. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has committed a per se violation of FDUPTA because the advertised price failed to include the dealer and DMV E-File fees despite being "charges that the customer must pay" (in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (16) )....

...plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." The complaint in the previous case, for example, also alleged violations of FDUTPA for overcharging titling and registration fees and failing to properly disclose under Fla. Stat. § 501.976 (18)....

Copy

Lourdes Cruz v. Cingular Wireless (11th Cir. 2011).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.