501.202
Purposes; rules of construction.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
501.202 Purposes; rules of construction.—The provisions of this part shall be construed liberally to promote the following policies:
(1) To simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing consumer protection, unfair methods of competition, and unconscionable, deceptive, and unfair trade practices.
(2) To protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.
(3) To make state consumer protection and enforcement consistent with established policies of federal law relating to consumer protection.
History.—s. 1, ch. 73-124; s. 1, ch. 93-38.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144
cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Kelly v. Palmer, Reifler, & Associates, P.A.
Kelly v. Palmer, Reifler, & Associates, P.A. (2010)
“See Fla. Stat. § 501.202 (providing for a liberal construction of the provisions of FDUTPA in order to protect the consuming public from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or…”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Performance Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery, LLC (2017)
“” Fla. Stat. § 501.202 (2). Heeding these provisions of FDUTPA, accepting the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint as true, and construing all reasonable inferences therefrom' in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that the conduct alleged in the Amended…”
STEWART AGENCY, INC., d/b/a EARL STEWART TOYOTA OF NORTH PALM BEACH v. ARRIGO ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ARRIGO DODGE CHRYS (2019)
“FDUTPA must be “construed liberally to promote” the policy of “protect[ing] the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or…”
MacK v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (1996)
“" § 501.202, Fla.Stat. (1993). Under the Florida DTPA a "consumer" is defined to include "an individual," like Mack and her class members.”
Intercoastal Realty, Inc. v. Tracy (2010)
“” Fla. Stat. § 501.202 (2). Although the statute does not define “unfair and deceptive act or practice,” the provisions of the act are to be “construed liberally.”
Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc. (2013)
“Fla. Stat. § 501.202 . Before 2001, the FDUTPA allowed “a consumer who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation” of the FDUTPA to bring a cause of action.”
Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch (2013)
“§ 501.202; see also § 501.203(7), Fla. Stat.”
Cluck-U Chicken, Inc. v. Cluck-U Corp. (2017)
“But FDUTPA has a broader statutory purpose to "protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc. (2010)
“” Fla. Stat. § 501.202 ; see also Samuels v.”
Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale (2001)
“211(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). While the Legislature does not define what "an unfair or deceptive act" is, it has mandated that FDUTPA is to be liberally construed.”
Williams v. Edelman (2005)
“” Fla. Stat. § 501.202 (2) (emphasis added).”
Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of Atty. Gen. (2000)
“See § 501.202, Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Macias v.”
— 501.202(1) — 1 case
— 501.202(2) — 39 cases
STEWART AGENCY, INC., d/b/a EARL STEWART TOYOTA OF NORTH PALM BEACH v. ARRIGO ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ARRIGO DODGE CHRYS (2019)
“FDUTPA must be “construed liberally to promote” the policy of “protect[ing] the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or…”
MacK v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (1996)
“" § 501.202, Fla.Stat. (1993). Under the Florida DTPA a "consumer" is defined to include "an individual," like Mack and her class members.”
KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber (2008)
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland (2006)
Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley (1999)
— 501.202(3) — 4 cases
— 501.202(303) — 1 case
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.