Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 670.201 (2025)
Security procedure.
✓ 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
670.201 Security procedure.—For purposes of this section, the term “security procedure” means a procedure established by agreement of a customer and a receiving bank for the purpose of:
(1) Verifying that a payment order or communication amending or canceling a payment order is that of the customer; or
(2) Detecting error in the transmission or the content of the payment order or communication.
A security procedure may impose an obligation on the receiving bank or the customer and may require the use of algorithms or other codes, identifying words, numbers, symbols, sounds, biometrics, encryption, callback procedures, or similar security devices. Comparison of a signature on a payment order or communication with an authorized specimen signature of the customer or requiring a payment order to be sent from a known e-mail address, Internet protocol address, or telephone number is not by itself a security procedure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Roger Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2012).
Roger Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2012). “Generally speaking, under Florida’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), if a bank and its customer agree upon a “security procedure,” as that phrase is defined by Fla. Stat. § 670.201 , and the procedure is commercially reasonable, a bank is absolved of liability for…”
Est. of Yevgenyi Scherban v. Suntrust Bank, 223 F. Supp. 3d 71 (D.D.C. 2016). “See Fla. Stat. § 670.201 (2); see also id. §§ 670.”
Coast to Coast Supply Solutions, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2020). “Palm responds to this argument by pointing out that the definition of “security procedure” in § 670.201, F.S. covers matters beyond just the authenticity of payment orders.”
Yel Co. Ins. v. Truist Bank (S.D. Fla. 2026). “204(1), provides: 1 While Plaintiff alleges provisions of the UCC in its Amended Complaint, this Court will undergo its analysis applying the relevant, comparable Florida statutory provisions.”
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.