Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 365.1657 (2025)

Intrastate use of facsimile machine for unsolicited advertising; prohibition; penalties; injunctive relief.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

365.1657 Intrastate use of facsimile machine for unsolicited advertising; prohibition; penalties; injunctive relief.—

(1) It is unlawful for any person to use a machine that electronically transmits facsimiles of documents through connection with a telephone network to transmit within this state unsolicited advertising material for the sale of any real property, goods, or services.

(2) The Attorney General may bring an action to impose a civil penalty and to seek injunctive relief. The civil penalty shall not exceed $500 per violation. Each transmission shall be considered a separate violation.

History.—s. 1, ch. 89-95.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2015 · leading case: Condon v. Off. Depot, Inc., 855 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Condon v. Off. Depot, Inc., 855 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · cites it 6× “(codified at § 365.1657, Fla. Stat. (2002)). The statute provided for a civil penalty not to exceed 0 per violation.”

Am. Cas. Co. of Reading v. Superior Pharmacy, LLC, 86 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 10× “” Fla. Stat. § 365.1657 (emphasis added). Attached to the Class Action Complaint is a copy of the fax that Florida First complains about (Dkt.”

Penzer v. Transp. Ins., 545 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008). “Transportation first alleges that coverage is excluded because Penzer’s claims actually arose from Southeast’s willful violation of a penal statute, namely, Fla. Stat. § 365.1657 . 7 The exclusion easily and logically can be read as limited to the statute giving rise to…”

PENZER v. Transp. Ins. Co., 605 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 2008). “Transportation first alleges that coverage is excluded because Penzer's claims actually arose from Southeast's willful violation of a penal statute, namely, Fla. Stat. § 365.1657 . [7] The exclusion easily and logically can be read as limited to the statute giving rise to…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.