Florida Justice Reform Institute
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Meet the President
  • Legislative
    • On the Front Line
    • On The Front Line 2025
    • Achievements
    • 2025 Legislation
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Member
    • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
    • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida made phone robocall law more business-friendly leaving voters asking why

July 27, 2023/in WFTS.com

WFTS

Under Florida’s 2021 telephone solicitation law, robocall call complaints plummeted

Robo calls

FULL STORY: https://wfts.tv/3Ybh0WM After years of annoying consumers, two years ago
Florida lawmakers became more involved in the robocall game by cracking down on these
nuisance calls and
 texts with the passage of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
By: Katie LaGrone Posted at 2:18 PM, Jul 27, 2023 and last updated 6:02 PM, Jul 27, 2023

TAMPA, Fla. — After years of annoying consumers, two years ago Florida lawmakers became more involved in the robocall game by cracking down on these nuisance calls and texts with the passage of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).

The unopposed, bi-partisan bill required all telemarketers to get prior written consent before they could call or text consumers in the state.

The aggressive new Florida law also gave citizens for the first time, the power to fight back through lawsuits if telemarketers didn’t stop contacting them.

“It was helpful, it allowed me the opportunity to have a voice,” explained Pinellas County resident Cheri Aul. She filed one of the first-class action lawsuits under the state’s new FTSA law.

Aul sued David’s Bridal in 2021 after the wedding gown company continued to hound her with dozens of unwanted text messages despite her repeated replies to stop.

Cheri spoke with us back in 2021 and described how the company’s text messages just wouldn’t stop.

“Then the next day I got another one. Now months later, and it’s continuing,” she told us shortly after filing the lawsuit.

Around the state, within a year of going into effect, Florida’s new phone solicitation law proved to dial back the overall problem of unwanted calls.

According to data recently provided to us by Florida’s Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services which tracks complaints about unsolicited communication, between 2021 and 2023 the number of robocall complaints to the department decreased by more than 80%. While complaints to the department about unsolicited communication also dropped by more than half.

Complaints from Floridians to the Federal Trade Commission show a similar pattern.

In fact, consumer advocates described Florida’s 2021 FTSA as the tightest anti-robocall law on the books, having such a positive impact on consumers in the state, the FTSA became a model for other states looking to crack down on unsolicited calls.

“It was the most protective of consumers in the country,” explains Tampa-based consumer attorney Billy Howard. His firm, The Consumer Protection Firm, specializes in robocall litigation. He also represented Aul in her class-action lawsuit against David’s Bridal.

“It was the gold standard. It was driving down robocalls and people were really happy because they could finally stop them,” he explained.

But just when Florida’s new robocall law was proving to do everything it set out to do for consumers, earlier this year that changed. State lawmakers brought back the issue. Only this time their focus seemed to be less on protecting Florida consumers and more on helping big businesses get back in the robocall game.

In Tallahassee this session, while debates over abortion rights, culture wars, and guns dominated the headlines, big business, and special interest quietly lobbied lawmakers to change Florida’s telephone solicitation law because businesses claimed they were getting sued too much under the 2021 law.

HB 761 called for several changes to Florida’s telephone solicitation law including:

•  narrows what constitutes an auto-dialer by requiring a platform to both automatically select and dial numbers to trigger liability
•  allow businesses to call or text consumers if they have an established business relationship with the consumer or in response to an inquiry
•  requires consumers who receive a text message in violation of the FTSA to reply “STOP” prior to filing suit
•  gives businesses a 15-day safe harbor period after a consumer sends a “STOP” message.

“The FTSA has huge unintended consequence of ensnaring legitimate businesses in frivolous litigation. This is literally bankrupting businesses,” an attorney for Florida’s Justice Reform Institute, an organization that advocates for changes in legal liability, said during the public comment section of a committee meeting back in March.

“I can tell you about case after case after case of these ridiculous lawsuits,” another attorney told lawmakers.

But despite asking for data showing 2021 had caused a deluge of “frivolous” lawsuits, Florida Representative Mike Beltran said he was never provided any proof.

Beltran, a Republican representing parts of Hillsborough County, led the charge to get the 2021 FTSA law passed.

“I said show me one frivolous lawsuit, they didn’t bring one complaint in,” he recently told Investigative Reporter Katie LaGrone during an interview about the motivations behind changing a law that seemed to work for Florida consumers.

“We have gone against consumer protection and in favor of big business,” he said about the changes.

Beltran stopped short of explaining why his Republican colleagues would amend a telephone solicitation law to favor businesses. But, campaign finance records may provide a clue.

In the months leading up to the 2023 legislative session, campaign finance records showed some of the same companies that lobbied for changes to Florida’s telephone solicitation law also donated thousands of dollars to Republican Senator Clay Yarborough, who introduced the more business-friendly version of the law in the Senate. (Yarborough did not respond to a request for comment.)

And even more money went to Representative Bob Rommel, the GOP chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. Rommel, a business owner, is also big tort reform supporter who wielded the power to move forward changes to the FTSA. (An office spokesperson told us Representative Rommel was not available for an interview.)

According to campaign donations, in January, Rommel’s PAC received $25,000 from the Committee of Automotive Retailers, a PAC led by longtime Florida lobbyist Ted Smith. He also heads the Florida Automobile Dealers Association, one of the organizations that lobbied hardest for changes to the law.

Smith explained why making the FTSA more friendly to businesses was one of his group’s top legislative priorities this past session.

“It was significant because all of my dealers really want to do is their routine business practices,” he said. “This change will now allow my dealers who have an established business relationship with you as a customer, to make a very important call or contact back to you concerning your car,” he said.

When asked if his PAC’s donations were a “pay to play” move to ensure the legislature’s super GOP majority would approve changes to make the FTSA more friendly to businesses, Smith responded, “We contribute unabashedly to campaigns to help people get elected into their House or Senate seat. That’s what PACs are all about. It’s not about influencing votes. It’s about assisting good people as they desire to get into office,” he said.

Their efforts worked.

By the end of the session, the legislature passed a new, more business-friendly telephone solicitation law. Representative Beltran was the only Republican in the House to vote against the bill.

“Everyone who didn’t have their head under a rock knew about the anti-consumer effects of the 2023 phone solicitation bill,” he said.

Consumer attorney Billy Howard said he believes the new law was driven by dollars.

“Money is the only thing that motivated the change of law. The Chamber of Commerce, the automobile industry and companies like David’s Bridal, they want to text people and call people without their permission, that’s the only motivating factor,” he said.

Cheri Aul’s 2021 class action lawsuit against David’s Bridal ultimately went nowhere. Two years after she filed suit, the company filed for bankruptcy. But not before it, too, spent thousands of dollars to hire its own lobbyist to change Florida’s phone solicitation law.

It’s a new law, Cheri fears will bring back the unwanted messages she fought so hard to stop.

“If the businesses or politicians, whoever, if they’re the ones making the decisions with money pushing for certain things, the consumer is the one that loses out in the end,” Aul said.

To reduce unsolicited telephone calls and/or text messages, consumers can subscribe to Florida’s Do Not Call list.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/florida-made-phone-robocall-law-more-business-friendly-leaving-voters-asking-why 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2023-07-27 15:55:222024-12-05 14:41:17Florida made phone robocall law more business-friendly leaving voters asking why
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Law experts have conflicting thoughts on new Florida tort reform

July 21, 2023/in wmnf.com

wmnf

July 21, 2023 by Chris Young 

Tampa Tiger Bay William Large

In March, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 837, a law overhauling Florida’s litigation landscape. A panel of law experts spoke to a civic group in Tampa about the law.

The law is referred to as tort reform, and makes a variety of changes. But the biggest one is regarding cases of negligence.

Previously, a plaintiff was entitled to recover a percentage of damages proportionate to the degree of fault of the defendant.

Under this new law, if a plaintiff is more negligent than the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover.

Steve Barnes is President of Tampa Bay Trial Lawyers Association.

“Is tort reform harmful to Florida and my families? One hundred percent it is. I was born and raised here, I work here, I represent folks like you every single day. And if I thought for one moment what happened in March of this year was good for you, good for my two girls, good for my three boys? I’d be sitting in his seat instead of mine.”

And by his seat, he means William Large with The Florida Justice Reform Institute.

“This creates a vibrant insurance market in Florida, a vibrant business market in Florida, protects the rights of consumers in Florida, and, unequivocally, that’s the role of the legislature and that’s why they passed this law.”

The law went into effect July 1st

https://www.wmnf.org/law-experts-have-conflicting-thoughts-on-new-florida-tort-reform/ 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2023-07-21 15:55:222024-12-05 14:53:09Law experts have conflicting thoughts on new Florida tort reform
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Medical malpractice appellate procedure amended by Florida Supreme Court

July 18, 2023/in Florida Record

FLORIDA RECORD

William Large

William Large | Florida Justice Reform Institute
By Juliette Fairley – Jul 18, 2023 

Although the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 outlines a list of nonfinal orders which are subject to appeal, the Florida Supreme Court has decided the rule does not identify all nonfinal orders that are appropriate for interlocutory review.

On its own motion, the Court amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) to include denying a motion to dismiss based on the qualifications of a corroborating witness under Section 766.102(5)-(9) of the Florida Statutes.

“The Medical Malpractice Act has changed the law such that an interlocutory remedy for parties facing claims that fail to satisfy its pre-suit requirements is warranted,” said William W. Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute (FJRI), a lobbying organization in Tallahassee. 

The rule change is effective immediately however the Court issued a companion opinion and is accepting public commentary until Sept. 19. 

“The Court pointedly did not provide for an appeal of an order granting such a motion, as it would be an order dismissing the case with leave to amend,” Large told the Florida Record.

As previously reported in Florida Politics, a medical malpractice claim can only be launched after a litigant meets pre-suit requirements, such as filing a written opinion from a medical expert that corroborates the alleged malpractice. Serving as a medical expert is dependent on the specialty of the physician being sued.

However, in the University of Florida Board of Trustees v. Laurie Carmody, an exception to the Medical Malpractice Act’s pre-suit requirement was created.

“The Court distinguished the exception as only applicable where there is an issue with the procedural aspects of the pre-suit requirements,” Large said.

For example, a district court can grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari review to verify that the plaintiff submitted the corroborating expert affidavit.

“The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to present a qualified expert under the Medical Malpractice Act was not subject to interlocutory certiorari review,” Large added. “The Court observed that Certiorari remains an ‘extraordinary remedy that is not meant to be a substitute for an appeal and is available in only very limited circumstance,”

The case came about after Carmody developed complications from a cervical disc fusion that Dr. William Friedman, a neurosurgeon, had performed on her at Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics. Carmody sued Shands and the University of Florida (UF) for medical malpractice allegedly caused by Dr. Friedman and a nurse.

“Shands and UF cannot show that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by denying their motion to dismiss,” the Court’s July 6 ruling states. 

 https://flarecord.com/stories/646283375-medical-malpractice-appellate-procedure-amended-by-florida-supreme-court 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2023-07-18 15:55:232024-12-05 14:55:36Medical malpractice appellate procedure amended by Florida Supreme Court
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Supreme Court decision changes the rules for medical malpractice lawsuits

July 6, 2023/in Florida Politics

Florida Politics

Supreme Court decision

Christine Jordan Sexton – July 6, 2023

‘A rule change of this magnitude should be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and recommendations prior to its adoption.’

The Florida Supreme Court is making it easier for medical providers to short-circuit medical malpractice lawsuits by altering the procedural rules regarding when medical malpractice cases can be appealed.

The court rejected a motion by the University of Florida Board of Trustees to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against the school. But at the same time, the court issued a related ruling that changes court rules to give appellate courts the ability to review non-final orders that deny a motion to dismiss a medical malpractice claim based on the qualifications of corroborating witnesses.

The rule change takes effect immediately. Because the Supreme Court amended the rule on its own the changes were not available for the public to review in advance of it taking effect. To that end, the Supreme Court is accepting through Sept. 19 public comments as well as requests for oral argument which the court acknowledged “may be scheduled in this case.”

In his brief dissenting opinion on the appellate rule change, Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga said, “a rule change of this magnitude should be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and recommendations prior to its adoption.”

The change is a significant one in the often-complex landscape of medical malpractice litigation.

“I am optimistic that this will ensure that only truly qualified experts offer opinions against other physicians,” said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a group that focuses on changing Florida’s legal environment to limit lawsuits against Florida businesses.

Before filing a medical malpractice claim in Florida, a person who wants to sue must meet certain requirements, including having a medical expert file a written opinion corroborating the alleged malpractice. The law limits who can serve as a medical expert by requiring that they meet certain criteria, depending on the type of provider being sued.

For general practitioners or non-specialists, expert witnesses must — in the three years before the alleged malpractice — have worked or consulted in the same or similar health profession as the provider being sued or taught the same or similar profession to students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency program; or devoted time to a clinical research program in the same or similar field that is affiliated with an accredited medical school or teaching hospital.

The criteria for suing providers who are specialists is similar but narrower in that it requires the expert to have worked in the same specialty, not allowing the expert to have “similar” experience to the specialist being sued.

Laurie Carmody filed the underlying case against Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, the University of Florida Board of Trustees, neurosurgeon William Friedman and advanced nurse practitioner Yolanda Gertsch-Lapcevic

Carmody alleges in the suit that she was paralyzed by an abscess that developed on her spine following a surgical procedure. Carmody included within her pre-suit notices the affidavit of James DeStephens, a licensed medical doctor specializing in internal medicine, hospital medicine and cardiology.

Shands and UF moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that DeStephens did not meet the expert witness requirements needed for the suit to continue.

The circuit court ultimately held hearings and, according to the Supreme Court opinion, Carmody “conceded” that the expert witness didn’t meet the requirements to testify against the neurosurgeon and she dropped him from the suit. But the circuit court denied UF’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.

UF responded by heading to the 1st District Court of Appeal and asking the Tallahassee-based appeals court to quash the lower court decision, saying it departed from essential requirements of the law and caused them irreparable harm. UF lawyers also argued that the changes to Florida’s medical malpractice laws over the years had fundamentally changed previous case law regarding requirements for hearing appeals while the underlying case was still ongoing.

Judges at 1DCA disagreed and eventually the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case. The bulk of the case centered on whether it was appropriate to review the circuit court order on the expert witness requirement while the overall lawsuit was still not resolved.

This type of review is appropriate only when there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law that result in material injury for the remainder of the case that cannot be corrected on appeal following the judgment. Moreover, in Florida, appellate review of non-final orders is limited.

In its ruling Thursday the majority of the Florida Supreme Court opined that ”while the burden of defending against litigation under ordinary circumstances does not constitute irreparable harm,” the Legislature “elected to treat differently the burden of defending against meritless medical negligence claims” when it passed pre-suit requirements for medical malpractice cases.

The opinion notes that the medical malpractice laws require judges to dismiss claims that don’t meet the pre-suit requirements.
“It is within our constitutional authority to ensure that Florida’s procedural rules of court manifest the substantive legal enactments of the Legislature,” the opinion notes, underscoring that only the court has the power to determine when such type of review is appropriate.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/622056-supreme-court-decision-changes-the-rules-for-medical-malpractice-lawsuits/

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2023-07-06 15:55:232024-12-05 14:59:01Supreme Court decision changes the rules for medical malpractice lawsuits
Search Search

FJRI News Categories

FJRI News Archive

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute

  • Phone

    (850) 222-0170

  • Hours of Operation

    Monday – Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

  • Address

    210 S Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32301

Site Links

  • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
  • About
  • Legislative
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
© 2025 Florida Justice Reform Institute, All Rights Reserved. | Website Hosting & Web Development by RAD TECH
  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to X
  • Link to LinkedIn
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top