Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 542.16 (2025)
Purpose.
✓ 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
1542.16 Purpose.—The Legislature declares it to be the purpose of this part to complement the body of federal law prohibiting restraints of trade or commerce in order to foster effective competition. It is the intent of the Legislature that this part be liberally construed to accomplish its beneficial purpose.
1Note.—Amended by s. 4, ch. 2025-213, effective July 1, 2025, per s. 22, ch. 2025-213. Chapter 2025-213 became law without the Governor’s signature on July 3, 2025, per s. 8(a), Art. III of the State Constitution. In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor Request of June 29, 1979, 374 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1979), specifies the constitutional effective date in s. 9, Art. III of the State Constitution in this situation. The constitutional effective date is August 15, 2025, for ch. 2025-213.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Bauer v. Dilib, Inc., 16 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Bauer v. Dilib, Inc., 16 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “§ 542.16, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added).”
MacK v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 673 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “§ 542.16, Fla.Stat. (1993). The purpose of DTPA, in part, is: (2) To protect the consuming public 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.”
All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., P.D.Q. Nurse, Inc. v. South Florida Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1989). “I do so because, as the district court correctly noted, "the reasoning of the opinions interpreting the Sherman Act [is] equally applicable to the court’s analysis of the Florida antitrust laws.”
Greenberg v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 629 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). “" § 542.16, Fla. Stat. (1991); Hackett, 422 So.”
Sabates v. Int'l Med. Centers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). “There is, however, abundant federal authority dealing with the subject of the arbitrability vel non of comparable federal antitrust claims, to which authority we must give "due consideration and great weight" in construing this state's antitrust law.”
Hackett v. Metro. Gen. Hosp., 422 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). “or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states." In fact, the Florida legislature declared that the purpose of the act was "to complement the body of federal law prohibiting restraints of trade or commerce in order to foster effective competition.”
All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. High Tech Staffing Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 1998). “"); Fla. Stat. §§ 542.16 (Florida antitrust laws complement federal antitrust laws), 542.”
Warner Cable Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Niceville, 581 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). “The court dismissed Count XVI, based both on the grounds of res judicata and because Warner had failed to allege a violation of the Florida Anti-Trust Act of 1980, Section 542.16, Florida Statutes (1987). Warner appealed the dismissal to this court, which affirmed in part,…”
Duck Tours Seafari, Inc. v. City of Key West, 875 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). “[2] The City moved for summary judgment arguing that it was entitled to state action immunity and that there was no Commerce Clause violation.”
Sec. Title & Abstract, Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins., 414 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “" While we agree with the trial court that in the spirit of free enterprise (see Section 542.16, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.”
McFalls v. NCH Healthcare Sys., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024). “” Fla. Stat. § 542.16 . But the provision does not nullify all contracts restraining trade—“enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of…”
Contractor Tool Supply, Inc. v. JPW Indus., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024). “”); § 542.16, Fla. Stat. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion t Dismiss (Doc.”
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.