Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...For this reason, given the basic facts of this case, it does not appear that the Plaintiffs could ever state a claim for misleading advertising under sections 817.40(5) and 817.41(1). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing the misleading advertising claim with prejudice. See Gladstone, 729 So.2d at 1003-05. Section 817.44, the false advertising statute cited in the second amended complaint, provides as follows: (1) WHAT CONSTITUTES INTENTIONAL FALSE ADVERTISING.—It is unlawful to offer for sale or to issue invitations for offers for the sale of any pro...

...(2) PRESUMPTION OF VIOLATION.—The failure to sell any article or a class of articles advertised, or the refusal to sell at the price at which it was advertised to be available for purchase, shall create a rebuttable presumption of an intent to violate this section. § 817.44(1)-(2), Fla....

...The Plaintiffs contended that these false statements constituted "false advertising," in that they constituted "an offer for sale of property and/or an invitation for an offer for sale of property as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the property pursuant to the terms stated in said Buyers Order." But this is not what section 817.44 prohibits. Section 817.44 prohibits an advertisement offering to sell property when the proposed seller has no intention of either actually selling the advertised property or of selling the property for the price advertised. See § 817.44(1). Thus, the Plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action for false advertising under section 817.44....

...They attempt to argue that the buyers order is "advertising" as defined by statute, but the only definition they cite is the definition of "misleading advertising" under section 817.40(5). The definition of "misleading advertising" under section 817.40(5) has no application to the term "false advertising" used in section 817.44. Compare § 817.40 with § 817.44. Because the Plaintiffs offer no further argument why the buyers order should constitute advertising under section 817.44, it appears the Plaintiffs could not state a cause of action for false advertising under section 817.44....

...The Plaintiff's six-count Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages based on alleged violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, Misleading Advertising, Fla. Stat. § 812.40, Intentional False Advertising, Fla.Stat. § 817.44; False Information, Fla....

...uice. Plaintiffs seek recovery on the theory that the primary display panel is misleading. They assert claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (§§ 501.201-501.213, Florida Statutes), the Florida false advertising statute (§ 817.44, Florida Statutes), and breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, 1 and unjust enrichment....

...We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions in appeal No. 87-5381. AFFIRMED. . These included the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.Stat. § 501.201-.213 (1987); id. § 817.41 (Misleading Advertising); id. § 817.44 (Intentional False Advertising); id....

...This is the primary display panel: *1330 [[Image here]] The plaintiffs seek recovery based solely on the assertion that the primary display panel is misleading. They assert claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla.Stat. § 501.201 et seq.), under the Florida false advertising statute (Fla.Stat. § 817.44), and for breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and unjust enrichment....