Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 817.41 (2025)
Misleading advertising 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
817.41 Misleading advertising prohibited.—
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise, in any way or by any medium whatsoever, any sale as a “wholesale sale,” “below cost sale,” or terms of similar purport, unless the goods, wares or merchandise offered for sale thereby are offered by the seller at or below his or her delivered net cost price, or below the average wholesale price of such goods, wares, or merchandise. Such advertising of goods, wares, or merchandise for sale shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses.
(3) Any retailer using the term or phrase “wholesale sale,” “below cost sale,” or terms of similar purport, in connection with the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise at retail, shall, upon demand by a customer, forthwith make available, unless the same shall have theretofore been made available, to the Better Business Bureau, the Merchant’s Division of the Chamber of Commerce, or to the state attorney’s office for inspection, invoices, or shipping charges or true and correct copies thereof, of any goods, wares, or merchandise so offered for sale, described or represented, indicating the delivery net cost to the seller of the particular goods, wares or merchandise sold or offered for sale, from which the seller’s delivered net cost may be determined. The said retailer shall also and at the same time give all reasonable assistance in determining and ascertaining his or her net cost price of said goods, wares, or merchandise. The said Better Business Bureau, Merchant’s Division of the Chamber of Commerce or state attorney, upon determining the said delivered net cost, shall forthwith issue a certificate evidencing such delivered net cost, as determined, and deliver the same to the retailer for delivery or exhibition to the customer. Unless such certificate shall show a delivered net cost equal to or in excess of the advertised price, the retailer shall be presumed to have violated this law.
(4) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the person named in or obtaining the benefits of any misleading advertisement or any such sale is responsible for such misleading advertisement or unlawful sale.
(5) No retailer shall knowingly and willfully advertise merchandise for sale at a special or wholesale price, in any way or by any medium whatsoever, if he or she does not have sufficient quantities of the advertised merchandise to meet the reasonably foreseeable demand, unless the fact of limited quantity and the approximate number of items is stated in the advertisement, or unless the retailer provides a means by which the consumer may obtain the advertised item at the advertised price within a reasonable time or a value equivalent thereto.
(6) Any person prevailing in a civil action for violation of this section shall be awarded costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, and may be awarded punitive damages in addition to actual damages proven. This provision is in addition to any other remedies prescribed by law.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 817.41
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§817.41FRAUDMISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 98
cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). “The Appellees' Claims for Misleading Advertising and Florida RICO-Racketeering In count II of the complaint, the Appellees alleged that the Appellants had disseminated misleading advertising before the general public of the State of Florida in violation of section 817.41(1),…”
Vance v. Ind. Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Here, because the court granted the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal, there was no necessity to consider damages.”
Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “In his initial complaint commencing the action, he included a claim seeking relief for misleading advertising under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1991), [1] and a claim for relief under *108 section 501.”
Sreenivasan Asokan, Chakravarthy Raghavan, Nanni Pidikiti, Rakesh Parekh, Ram Reddy, Madhubala Reddy, Rodger Lodge, Anuradha Asokan, Indep. Anesthesia Servs., P.A. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (M.D. Fla. 2017). “Count III In Count III, Plaintiffs bring a claim under Florida's Misleading Advertising Law, Fla. Stat. § 817.41 , contending that American General "publicly disseminated advertising regarding its Programs and Policies that contained statements that were fraudulent, untrue…”
Cheryl Cohen, on Behalf of Herself & Others Similarly Situated v. Off. Depot, Inc., a Florida Corp., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). “, and misleading advertising, see Fla. Stat. § 817.41 . Both statutory causes of action authorize a court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “A cause of action for misleading advertising is defined under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 817.”
Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). “In the litigation that resulted in the FSA, the State, in support of its claim for punitive damages, alleged knowing and intentional dissemination of false, fraudulent and misleading statements to the general public by the FSA Defendants in violation of section 817.41, Florida…”
Cross v. Point & Pay, LLC, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2017). “” Fla. Stat. § 817.41 (1). Although Defendant includes section 817.”
Joseph v. Liberty Nat. Bank, 873 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “When all the pleading smoke cleared, what remained were three counts against the Bank, one for negligent misrepresentation, one for fraudulent misrepresentation, and one for misleading advertising under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1999). The Bank moved for summary judgment…”
Major v. State, 180 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1965). “This cause is here on appeal to review the decision of the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County upholding the validity of F.S. § 817.41, F.S.A., the basis of the information charging Henry Major, defendant, appellant herein, as follows: "* * * Henry Major on the 1st day of…”
Himes v. Brown & Co. Sec. Corp., 518 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “Suffice it to say that all of Himes's claims suffer from the same major defect. The trial court could justifiably find that Himes did not suffer any actual damages proximately caused by Brown's alleged violations of Florida's False Advertising Statute, section 817.”
Cohen v. Off. Depot, Inc., 184 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 1999). “ATTORNEY FEES On behalf of the class, Cohen brought claims under Florida statutes that prohibit deceptive business practices, see Fla.”
— 817.41(1) — 11 cases
Vance v. Ind. Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Here, because the court granted the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal, there was no necessity to consider damages.”
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). “The Appellees' Claims for Misleading Advertising and Florida RICO-Racketeering In count II of the complaint, the Appellees alleged that the Appellants had disseminated misleading advertising before the general public of the State of Florida in violation of section 817.41(1),…”
Joseph v. Liberty Nat. Bank, 873 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “When all the pleading smoke cleared, what remained were three counts against the Bank, one for negligent misrepresentation, one for fraudulent misrepresentation, and one for misleading advertising under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1999). The Bank moved for summary judgment…”
Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “A cause of action for misleading advertising is defined under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 817.”
Rubin v. Sanford, 168 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
— 817.41(2) — 1 case
Black Diamond Props., Inc. v. Haines, 90 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
— 817.41(4) — 2 cases
Sunset Harbour North Condo. Assoc. v. Bedzow, 842 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Burton v. Carnival Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2024).
— 817.41(5) — 2 cases
Third Party Verification, Inc. v. Signaturelink, Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “In his initial complaint commencing the action, he included a claim seeking relief for misleading advertising under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1991), [1] and a claim for relief under *108 section 501.”
— 817.41(6) — 15 cases
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). “The Appellees' Claims for Misleading Advertising and Florida RICO-Racketeering In count II of the complaint, the Appellees alleged that the Appellants had disseminated misleading advertising before the general public of the State of Florida in violation of section 817.41(1),…”
Vance v. Ind. Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Here, because the court granted the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal, there was no necessity to consider damages.”
Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “In his initial complaint commencing the action, he included a claim seeking relief for misleading advertising under section 817.41, Florida Statutes (1991), [1] and a claim for relief under *108 section 501.”
Black Diamond Props., Inc. v. Haines, 36 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
Deer Valley Realty, Inc. v. SB Hotel Assocs., LLC, 190 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
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.