HB 117 would create a new consumer-protection offense aimed at unlicensed vendors who take payment for home repair or property-related work and then fail to promptly begin, continue, permit, or refund the job. The bill defines an “unlicensed vendor” broadly to include people providing or promising services for a residential home and the surrounding property, such as driveways, lawns, trees, landscaping, walls, fences, and other fixtures, so long as they are not licensed contractors under chapter 489. It requires such vendors, after receiving an initial payment, to apply for any needed permit within 14 days, start work within 14 days of payment or permit issuance, and keep working without a 14-day interruption unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.
The bill also creates a presumption that the vendor lacks just cause if the vendor fails to refund money above the value of work performed and does not meet the bill’s permit, start, continuity, or termination requirements. To rebut that presumption, the vendor bears the burden of proving just cause. If the vendor violates these requirements, the bill authorizes criminal prosecution and sets penalties based on the amount of money received, ranging from a first-degree misdemeanor for amounts under $1,000 to first-degree felony treatment for amounts of $200,000 or more. It also specifies evidentiary rules allowing intent to be inferred from failure to refund and failure to perform, and it states that an intent to return the money is not a defense.
HB 117 would also amend Florida’s home solicitation sale permit law in s. 501.022, F.S., by modifying one of the exemptions from the permit requirement. The bill keeps most existing exemptions intact, including business-to-business solicitations, invited visits, certain telephone sales, catalog/sample sales, minors supervised by permitted adults, regulated sellers under chapters 475 and 497, and certain nonprofit or exempt organizations. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, but the bill’s focus suggests a consumer-protection rationale aimed at preventing payment-taking and job-abandonment by unlicensed home-repair operators. At the same time, the bill’s criminal penalties and burden-shifting provisions indicate a strong enforcement approach that could be viewed as significant by vendors and small service providers who work without contractor licensure. The bill ultimately did not advance, dying in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee on June 16, 2025.
The main point of contention likely centers on whether the bill appropriately targets bad actors without overreaching into ordinary small-scale home repair or landscaping work, especially given the broad definition of covered services and the criminal consequences tied to missed deadlines or incomplete work. Another likely issue is the presumption against the vendor and the requirement that the vendor prove just cause, which may raise concerns about due process and the practical ability of unlicensed vendors to comply with permit and performance timelines.
HB 117 would create a new section in chapter 501, Florida Statutes, governing home repairs by unlicensed vendors and would amend s. 501.022 on home solicitation sales. It would impose new duties on unlicensed vendors who accept payment for residential property-related work, establish a rebuttable presumption against them when they fail to perform or refund money, and authorize criminal penalties tied to the amount received. The bill would also narrow or clarify the scope of existing home solicitation sale permit exemptions, affecting solicitors, salespersons, and agents operating in Florida.
The available record shows no committee debate or roll-call votes, so there is no direct transcript evidence of support or opposition. Based on the bill’s content and its consumer-protection framing, the measure appears intended to protect homeowners from nonperforming unlicensed vendors and likely had a public-safety and fraud-prevention rationale. However, the bill’s failure to advance suggests it did not secure enough support to move out of subcommittee, possibly because of concerns about criminalization, enforcement, or the breadth of the new obligations.
The most notable contention is between consumer protection and regulatory burden. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to stop unlicensed vendors from taking deposits and delaying or abandoning home repair work, while opponents may argue that the bill is too broad, imposes strict deadlines that may be difficult to meet, and creates harsh criminal penalties for conduct that could arise from ordinary business disputes or permit delays. The burden-shifting presumption and the rule that intent to return money is not a defense are especially likely to draw due-process and fairness concerns from vendors and industry stakeholders.