HB 375 revises Florida’s telephone solicitation law in section 501.059, Florida Statutes. The bill expands and clarifies the definitions of “telephone solicitor” and “telephonic sales call” to expressly include text messages and voicemail transmissions, along with traditional phone calls, when used to solicit sales of consumer goods or services, solicit consumer credit, or gather information for later sales solicitation. It also preserves an exception for tax-exempt nonprofit organizations acting for religious, charitable, political, or educational purposes.
The bill further changes the attorney-fee provisions in civil actions involving alleged violations of the telephone solicitation law. It states that the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs after judgment and exhaustion of appeals, and it clarifies when fees and costs may be awarded in actions brought by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or the Department of Legal Affairs. The bill also makes the amendments retroactive and characterizes them as remedial, and it reenacts a related securities statute so its cross-reference remains consistent.
HB 375 would broaden the reach of Florida’s telemarketing and consumer-protection rules by expressly covering text messaging and voicemail-based solicitations under the state’s telephone solicitation statute. It would affect businesses, telemarketers, and other entities that use phone calls, texts, or voicemail to market consumer goods, services, or credit, while continuing to exempt qualifying nonprofit communications. The bill also changes litigation risk by making attorney-fee awards more clearly available to prevailing parties in private and state-enforced actions, and it applies those changes retroactively.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no detailed debate is available. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears aimed at updating consumer-protection law for modern communication methods and clarifying fee-shifting rules, which suggests a generally regulatory and enforcement-oriented purpose rather than a controversial policy shift. The bill ultimately died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance despite being filed.
The main points of potential contention are the expanded definition of covered solicitations and the attorney-fee provisions. Businesses and telemarketing interests may view the inclusion of texts and voicemails as increasing compliance burdens and litigation exposure, while consumer advocates may support the broader coverage as necessary to address modern solicitation practices. The retroactive application and the prevailing-party fee rule could also be disputed because they may affect pending or past disputes and alter incentives in enforcement litigation. The nonprofit exemption is preserved, so contention would likely focus more on commercial actors than on charitable, religious, political, or educational organizations.