Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 542.22 (2025)
Suits for damages.
✓ 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
542.22 Suits for damages.—
1(1) Any person who shall be injured in her or his business or property by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19 may sue therefor in the circuit courts of this state and shall recover threefold the damages by her or him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney fee. The court shall award a reasonable attorney fee to a defendant prevailing in any action under this part for damages or equitable relief in which the court finds there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the plaintiff.
(2) The Attorney General, or a state attorney after receiving written permission from the Attorney General, may bring a civil action in the name of the state, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in this state, to recover on behalf of those persons threefold the actual damages sustained by reason of any violation of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19, and the cost of such suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The court shall exclude from the amount of monetary relief awarded in such action any amount of monetary relief which:
(a) Duplicates amounts which have been awarded for the same injury;
(b) Is properly allocable to natural persons who have excluded their claims pursuant to paragraph (3)(b); or
(c) Is properly allocable to any business entity.
(3) In any action under subsection (2):
(a) The Attorney General or state attorney shall, at such time, in such manner, and with such content as the court may direct, cause notice to be given to the proposed class by publication. If the court finds that notice given solely by publication would deny due process of law to any person or persons, the court shall direct further notice to such person or persons according to the circumstances of the case.
(b) Any person on whose behalf an action is brought under subsection (2) may elect to exclude from adjudication the portion of the claim for monetary relief attributable to her or him by filing notice of such election with the court within such time as specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (a). The final judgment in such action shall be res judicata as to any claim under this section by any person on behalf of whom such action was brought and who fails to give such notice within the period specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (a).
(c) No dismissal or compromise shall be entered without the approval of the court, and notice, if any, of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given in such manner as the court directs.
(d) Monetary relief shall be distributed in such manner as the court in its discretion may authorize, subject to the requirement that any distribution procedure adopted shall afford each person a reasonable opportunity to secure her or his appropriate portion of the net monetary relief.
(e) In any action under subsection (2) in which there has been a determination that a defendant agreed to fix prices in violation of s. 542.18, damages may be proved and assessed in the aggregate by statistical or sampling methods, by the computation of illegal overcharges, or by such other reasonable system of estimating aggregate damages as the court in its discretion may permit without the necessity of separately proving the individual claims of, or amounts of damage to, persons on whose behalf the suit was brought.
1Note.—Amended by s. 7, 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 14
cases, 1985–2017 · leading case: JES Props., Inc. v. USA Equestrian, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
JES Props., Inc. v. USA Equestrian, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2006). “Attorneys’ Fees Under the Florida Antitrust Act Fla. Stat. § 542.22 provides that a defendant in an action under the Florida Antitrust Act can recover its attorneys’ fees if the Court determines that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact…”
Humane Soc. of Broward v. Fl Humane Soc., 951 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “Broward Humane points to Florida's Anti-Trust Act section 542.22(1), Florida Statutes (2003), to support its argument that a prevailing FDUTPA defendant should only be awarded attorney's fees when a "court finds there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or…”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). “Code § 28-4507 (b); Fla. Stat. § 542.22 (2); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-14 (b); Idaho Code § 48-108 (2); 740 Ill.”
Boswell v. Shirley's Pers. Care Servs. of Okeechobee, Inc., 211 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “They also requested fees based on section 542.22, Florida Statutes (2013). The corporate defendant sought fees based only on section 542.”
Norton Tire Co. v. Tire Kingdom Co., 116 F.R.D. 236 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “The Reason for Safeguards Rule 11 and Florida Statute § 542.22(1) were implemented to prevent the filing of spurious law suits since substantial financial resources may be squandered.”
Davis v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 149 F.R.D. 666 (S.D. Fla. 1993). “§ 15c and Fla.Stat.Ann. § 542.22. Both statutes empower a state attorney general to initiate a civil action on behalf of all natural persons resident in the state based on particular antitrust violations 1 .”
Shirley's Pers. Care Servs. of Okeechobee, Inc. v. Boswell, 165 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “The motion also sought fees based on section 542.22, Florida Statutes (2013), ■ a statute permitting fees under certain circumstances in cases related to monopolies and unlawful restraints on commerce.”
Parts Depot Co. v. Florida Auto Supply, 669 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). “The jury returned a verdict for Florida Auto Supply for ,000, which the trial court trebled pursuant to section 542.22, Florida Statutes (1989). From the final judgment, the appellant takes this appeal.”
Sebring Utils. Com'n v. Home Sav. Ass'n, 508 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). “13 damages for the amount it expended to install water and fire protection systems. The trial court further ruled the tie-in was *28 a violation of Florida's antitrust laws and that the Commission was not immune from suit under the antitrust act.”
Reitz v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 695 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. Fla. 1988). “Fla.Stat. § 542.22(1). The language of that section closely tracks that of section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Conner v. Bcc Fin. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (addressing attorney fees provisions of the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.22 ). Finding this case failed to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact, Judge Turnoff recommends that Plaintiff be personally liable for the award of…”
Norton Tire Co. v. Tire Kingdom Co., 108 F.R.D. 371 (S.D. Fla. 1985). “Fla.Stat.Ann. § 542.22(1) (West.Supp.1985).”
— 542.22(1) — 6 cases
Humane Soc. of Broward v. Fl Humane Soc., 951 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “Broward Humane points to Florida's Anti-Trust Act section 542.22(1), Florida Statutes (2003), to support its argument that a prevailing FDUTPA defendant should only be awarded attorney's fees when a "court finds there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or…”
Norton Tire Co. v. Tire Kingdom Co., 116 F.R.D. 236 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “The Reason for Safeguards Rule 11 and Florida Statute § 542.22(1) were implemented to prevent the filing of spurious law suits since substantial financial resources may be squandered.”
Sebring Utils. Com'n v. Home Sav. Ass'n, 508 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). “13 damages for the amount it expended to install water and fire protection systems. The trial court further ruled the tie-in was *28 a violation of Florida's antitrust laws and that the Commission was not immune from suit under the antitrust act.”
Reitz v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 695 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. Fla. 1988). “Fla.Stat. § 542.22(1). The language of that section closely tracks that of section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Norton Tire Co. v. Tire Kingdom Co., 108 F.R.D. 371 (S.D. Fla. 1985). “Fla.Stat.Ann. § 542.22(1) (West.Supp.1985).”
— 542.22(2) — 1 case
Davis v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 149 F.R.D. 666 (S.D. Fla. 1993). “§ 15c and Fla.Stat.Ann. § 542.22. Both statutes empower a state attorney general to initiate a civil action on behalf of all natural persons resident in the state based on particular antitrust violations 1 .”
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.