Fla. Stat. » 817
Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 817.061 (2025)

Misleading solicitation of payments prohibited.

✓ 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
817.061 Misleading solicitation of payments prohibited.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person, company, corporation, agency, association, partnership, institution, or charitable entity to solicit payment of money by another by means of a statement or invoice, or any writing that would reasonably be interpreted as a statement or invoice, for goods not yet ordered or for services not yet performed and not yet ordered, unless there appears on the face of the statement or invoice or writing in 30-point boldfaced type the following warning:

“This is a solicitation for the order of goods or services, and you are under no obligation to make payment unless you accept the offer contained herein.”

(2) Any person damaged by noncompliance with this section, in addition to other remedies, is entitled to damages in the amount equal to 3 times the sum solicited.
(3) Any person, company, corporation, agency, association, partnership, institution, or charitable entity that violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 69-246; s. 845, ch. 71-136.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 817.061

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd
§817.061FRAUDMISLEADING SOLICITATION OF PAYMENTSM · 2nd
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Davis v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 755 F. Supp. 1532 (S.D. Fla. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 755 F. Supp. 1532 (S.D. Fla. 1991). · cites it 2× “19 (1987), treble damages for violations of the Florida RICO laws, and treble damages for violations of Fla. Stat. § 817.061 . 3 .Inside wire is used in both interstate and intrastate communication and is regulated concurrently by both the State and the federal government.”
Cavaliere v. Comcast Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 45 ; (4) violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.061 ; and (5) violation of 47 C.”
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.

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, a Jacksonville, Florida criminal defense attorney (Florida Bar No. 39104). Attorney Syfert regularly handles Chapter 817 matters in the context of fraud and white collar defense and represents clients throughout Northeast Florida. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.