Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 817.416 (2025)

Franchises and distributorships; misrepresentations.

✓ 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

817.416 Franchises and distributorships; misrepresentations.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—For the purpose of this section:

(a) The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity doing business in Florida.

(b) The term “franchise or distributorship” means a contract or agreement, either expressed or implied, whether oral or written, between two or more persons:

1. Wherein a commercial relationship of definite duration or continuing indefinite duration is involved;

2. Wherein one party, hereinafter called the “franchisee,” is granted the right to offer, sell, and distribute goods or services manufactured, processed, distributed or, in the case of services, organized and directed by another party;

3. Wherein the franchisee as an independent business constitutes a component of franchisor’s distribution system; and

4. Wherein the operation of the franchisee’s business franchise is substantially reliant on franchisors for the basic supply of goods.

(c) The term “goods” means any article or thing without limitation, or any part of such article or thing, including any article or thing used or consumed by a franchisee in rendering a service established, organized, directed, or approved by a franchisor.

(2) DECLARATIONS.—

(a) It is unlawful, when selling or establishing a franchise or distributorship, for any person:

1. Intentionally to misrepresent the prospects or chances for success of a proposed or existing franchise or distributorship;

2. Intentionally to misrepresent, by failure to disclose or otherwise, the known required total investment for such franchise or distributorship; or

3. Intentionally to misrepresent or fail to disclose efforts to sell or establish more franchises or distributorships than is reasonable to expect the market or market area for the particular franchise or distributorship to sustain.

(b) The execution or carrying out of a scheme, plan, or corporate organization which violates any of the provisions of this section, if knowledge or intent be proved, shall be a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082 and 775.083.

(3) CIVIL PROVISIONS.—Any person, who shows in a civil court of law a violation of this section may receive a judgment for all moneys invested in such franchise or distributorship. Upon such a showing, the court may award any person bringing said action reasonable attorney’s fees and shall award such person reasonable costs incurred in bringing the action, and execution shall thereupon issue.

(4) INJUNCTIONS.—The Department of Legal Affairs, or the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services jointly, may sue in behalf of the people of this state for injunctive relief against franchise or distributorship plans or activities in violation of paragraph (2)(a).

History.—ss. 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, ch. 71-61.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 817.416

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§817.416FRAUDINTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT FRANCHISE PROSPECTM · 2nd

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 45 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). · cites it 5× “…this controversy in Thorpe v. Gelbwaks, 953 So.2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). [2] §§ 501.201-213, Fla. Stat. (2005). [3] § 817.416, Fla. Stat. (2005).”

Beaver Coaches, Inc. v. Revels Nat. Rv Sales, Inc., 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). · cites it 11× “Count II of the complaint alleged violation of Section 817.416, Florida Statutes (the Florida Franchise Fraud Act), in that Beaver knowingly misrepresented that the contractually designated territory would be exclusive to Revels in order to induce Revels' execution of the…”

Voicestream Wireless v. US Commc'ns, 912 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). · cites it 5× “Appellees' complaint against VoiceStream includes a claim for violation of the Florida Franchise Act, section 817.416, Florida Statutes (2000), which provides that a party who shows a violation of the Act may recover "all moneys invested in such franchise or distribution" and…”

Barnes v. Burger King Corp., 932 F. Supp. 1420 (S.D. Fla. 1996). · cites it 5× “In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Burger King argues that Barnes’ claims under § 817.416 must fail because, to recover under the Act, “a franchisee must demonstrate ‘proof of intentional words or conduct by the franchisor .”

Hall v. Burger King Corp., 912 F. Supp. 1509 (S.D. Fla. 1995). · cites it 6× “§§ 1981 and 1982; Count III seeks relief on a state law theory of fraud; Count IV seeks relief for BKC’s alleged intentional interference with contractual relations; Count V seeks relief for breach of contract; Count VII seeks relief under the Florida Franchise Act, Fla.Stat. §…”

Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D. Fla. 1992). · cites it 6× “Count XV: Breach of Florida Franchise Act In Count XV, Plaintiffs allege that BKC breached the Florida Franchise Act ( Fla. Stat. § 817.416 ) by intentionally misrepre *1022 senting material facts regarding Franchise # 6470 that were intended to induce Austins to enter into…”

Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 817.416, Fla. Stat. (1993). This is a claim that can only be asserted by Tampa Checkmate or as a derivative claim on behalf of Tampa Checkmate.”

SIG, Inc. v. AT & T Digit. Life, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 4× “Florida Franchise Act Claims Count VI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts a claim against all Defendants for violation of the Florida Franchise Act (“FFA”), Fla. Stat. § 817.416 . D.E. 1, ¶¶ 156-163.”

Burger King Corp. v. Holder, 844 F. Supp. 1528 (S.D. Fla. 1993). · cites it 5× “Burger King asserts that Holder’s claim based on the Florida Franchise Act (“FFA”), Fla.Stat. § 817.416, must be dismissed because all of Holder’s franchises are located in Kansas.”

Viets v. AREI, 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). · cites it 2× “On April 23, 2002, plaintiff sued AREI for breach of contract, rescission, and statutory restitution under section 817.416(3), Florida Statutes. This statute provides remedies for misrepresentations by franchisors.”

Grand Kensington, LLC v. Burger King Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 834 (E.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 5× “Fla.Stat. § 817.416(2). The relevant Michigan law concerning franchises is the aforementioned MFIL, which states: A person shall not, in connection with the filing, offer, sale, or purchase of any franchise, directly or indirectly: (a) Employ any device, scheme, or artifice to…”

Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2007). · cites it 3× “Fla. Stat. Ann. § 817.416 (2)(a)(l)-(2). The statute provides franchisees with a single remedy: “judgment for all moneys invested” in a franchise that was sold in violation of the statute, plus costs and (at the court’s discretion) attorney’s fees.”

Show all 45 citing cases →

— 817.416(1)(a) — 1 case

Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). “§ 817.416, Fla. Stat. (1993). This is a claim that can only be asserted by Tampa Checkmate or as a derivative claim on behalf of Tampa Checkmate.”

— 817.416(1)(b) — 1 case

Font v. Stanley Steemer Int'l, Inc., 849 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

— 817.416(2) — 3 cases

KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “…this controversy in Thorpe v. Gelbwaks, 953 So.2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). [2] §§ 501.201-213, Fla. Stat. (2005). [3] § 817.416, Fla. Stat. (2005).”

Grand Kensington, LLC v. Burger King Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 834 (E.D. Mich. 2000). “Fla.Stat. § 817.416(2). The relevant Michigan law concerning franchises is the aforementioned MFIL, which states: A person shall not, in connection with the filing, offer, sale, or purchase of any franchise, directly or indirectly: (a) Employ any device, scheme, or artifice to…”

Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D. Fla. 1992). “Count XV: Breach of Florida Franchise Act In Count XV, Plaintiffs allege that BKC breached the Florida Franchise Act ( Fla. Stat. § 817.416 ) by intentionally misrepre *1022 senting material facts regarding Franchise # 6470 that were intended to induce Austins to enter into…”

— 817.416(2)(a) — 7 cases

Barnes v. Burger King Corp., 932 F. Supp. 1420 (S.D. Fla. 1996). “In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Burger King argues that Barnes’ claims under § 817.416 must fail because, to recover under the Act, “a franchisee must demonstrate ‘proof of intentional words or conduct by the franchisor .”

Schubot v. McDonalds Corp., 757 F. Supp. 1351 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

Cousins Restaurant Assocs. ex rel. Cousins Mgmt. Corp. v. TGI Friday's, Inc., 843 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Perdido Key Island Resort Dev., L.L.P. v. Regions Bank, 102 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Beaver Coaches, Inc. v. Revels Nat. Rv Sales, Inc., 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). “Count II of the complaint alleged violation of Section 817.416, Florida Statutes (the Florida Franchise Fraud Act), in that Beaver knowingly misrepresented that the contractually designated territory would be exclusive to Revels in order to induce Revels' execution of the…”

— 817.416(2)(a)(1) — 2 cases

Travelodge Intern., Inc. v. E. Inns, Inc., 382 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Prestige Ins. Grp. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2022).

— 817.416(2)(a)(3) — 1 case

— 817.416(2)(a)(l) — 1 case

SIG, Inc. v. AT & T Digit. Life, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Fla. 2013). “Florida Franchise Act Claims Count VI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts a claim against all Defendants for violation of the Florida Franchise Act (“FFA”), Fla. Stat. § 817.416 . D.E. 1, ¶¶ 156-163.”

— 817.416(2)(b) — 2 cases

Hockey Enter. Inc. v. Total Hockey Worldwide, LLC, 762 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Minnesota 2011).

Miami Lincoln Mercury v. Kramer, 399 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

— 817.416(3) — 6 cases

Viets v. AREI, 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “On April 23, 2002, plaintiff sued AREI for breach of contract, rescission, and statutory restitution under section 817.416(3), Florida Statutes. This statute provides remedies for misrepresentations by franchisors.”

Voicestream Wireless v. US Commc'ns, 912 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “Appellees' complaint against VoiceStream includes a claim for violation of the Florida Franchise Act, section 817.416, Florida Statutes (2000), which provides that a party who shows a violation of the Act may recover "all moneys invested in such franchise or distribution" and…”

— 817.416(l)(a) — 4 cases

Burger King Corp. v. Holder, 844 F. Supp. 1528 (S.D. Fla. 1993). “Burger King asserts that Holder’s claim based on the Florida Franchise Act (“FFA”), Fla.Stat. § 817.416, must be dismissed because all of Holder’s franchises are located in Kansas.”

Barnes v. Burger King Corp., 932 F. Supp. 1441 (S.D. Fla. 1996).

— 817.416(l)(b) — 1 case

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.