Deceptive and Unfair Trade Acts or Practices:
HB 1005 would create a new Florida statute, s. 501.2043, to define certain advertising and sales practices as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Beginning January 1, 2026, the bill would apply to transactions intended to result in, or that actually result in, the sale or lease of goods or services to consumers. It targets conduct such as advertising a price without including all mandatory fees or charges, misrepresenting the source or approval of goods or services, failing to disclose “plus tax and fees” or a similar statement when taxes and fees are not included, making false claims about price reductions, misrepresenting consumer rights or remedies, promising contingent rebates or discounts as if they were guaranteed, and misrepresenting a salesperson’s authority.
The bill would make these practices enforceable under existing FDUTPA enforcement provisions, including the remedies and procedures in ss. 501.206-501.2075, rather than creating a separate enforcement scheme. Its practical effect would be to require more transparent, all-in pricing and more accurate marketing disclosures in consumer sales and lease transactions, affecting advertisers, retailers, service providers, and their agents or employees across Florida. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, with the substantive prohibitions beginning January 1, 2026.
HB 1005 would expand Florida’s consumer protection laws by expressly adding a set of advertising and sales practices to the list of unfair or deceptive acts under FDUTPA. It would likely affect businesses that advertise consumer goods or services, especially those that use add-on fees, drip pricing, promotional discounts, or contingent rebates, by requiring clearer price disclosure and limiting misleading marketing claims. Enforcement would proceed through existing FDUTPA mechanisms, meaning the bill would integrate into current state law rather than establish a new regulatory program.
There is limited recorded committee discussion or voting history available for this bill, but the text suggests a consumer-protection focus aimed at improving price transparency and preventing deceptive marketing. The bill died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee, which indicates it did not advance despite its stated consumer-facing purpose. With no recorded votes or transcripts provided, the available history shows procedural failure rather than a documented floor-level debate or broad consensus.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s impact on business advertising practices and compliance burdens, particularly for sellers that rely on advertised prices with separate fees, promotional discounts, or conditional rebates. Businesses and industry groups may view the measure as duplicative of existing consumer protection law or as imposing stricter disclosure requirements that could affect pricing flexibility and marketing strategies. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, consumer clarity, and curbing deceptive “drip pricing” or misleading discount claims, while opponents would focus on implementation costs and the breadth of the prohibited conduct.