Advertisements for Representation Services:
HB 915 addresses advertising and disclosure requirements for notaries public and for businesses or individuals offering immigration services. The bill amends Florida’s notary statute to prohibit non-attorney notaries from using literal translations of “Notary Public” in advertisements and from using terms such as “notario público,” “notario,” “immigration assistant,” “immigration consultant,” or “immigration specialist,” or any other title that implies legal expertise in immigration law, unless they are authorized to represent people in immigration matters. It also requires non-attorney notaries advertising in a language other than English to include a conspicuous warning that they are not attorneys, may not give legal advice, and may not accept fees for legal advice.
The bill creates new civil causes of action under both chapter 117 and chapter 501, allowing an aggrieved person to seek declaratory or injunctive relief, actual damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs for violations. It also requires certain immigration-services providers who are not licensed attorneys or otherwise authorized under federal law to post a specific disclosure on their website and at their place of business in English and in every language in which they offer services. In practical terms, the measure expands consumer-protection and anti-deception rules affecting notaries, immigration consultants, and related service providers, and it is intended to reduce confusion between legal services and non-legal assistance.
The bill appears to have been enacted without recorded committee debate or vote detail in the provided materials, and its final status as Chapter No. 2025-82 suggests it received sufficient legislative support to pass. The overall tone of the measure is protective and fraud-prevention oriented, focusing on consumer clarity and preventing misleading advertising, especially in multilingual and immigration-related contexts. The absence of recorded opposition in the supplied context suggests no documented controversy in the available record, though the subject matter itself is likely aimed at a vulnerable consumer population.
The main points of contention likely center on speech and business-practice restrictions for notaries and immigration-service providers, particularly the prohibition on using translated titles like “notario” and the mandated disclaimer language. Supporters would view these provisions as necessary to prevent deceptive practices and unauthorized practice of law, while critics might argue the rules are burdensome, could chill legitimate advertising in non-English communities, or create compliance risks for small businesses. The civil-enforcement provisions, including damages and attorney fees, also increase exposure for violators and may be viewed as a strong deterrent or, conversely, as an aggressive enforcement mechanism.