REVOKED?!: Court Allows FTSA Claim to Proceed Despite Alleged Established Business Relationship

Hi TCPAWorld! The Baroness here.

Lets get into it.

So we know that having or creating an established business relationship with an entity is a defense to a TCPA violation.

The term “telephone solicitation” excludes calls made without consent and to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship (EBR).

The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (mini-TCPA) is similar.

Under the FTSA, “unsolicited telephone sales calls” excludes calls made “[t]o a person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior existing business relationship.”

While the FTSA does not define “established business relationship,” Florida courts have looked to federal law interpreting the TCPA for guidance. Federal law defines an EBR as:

…a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of the subscriber’s purchase or transaction with the entity within eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call or on the basis of the subscriber’s inquiry or application regarding products or services offered by the entity within the three months immediately preceding the date of the call, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party.

Why are we talking about EBR?

Well, in the case Specht v. Lee Health System, Inc. d/b/a Lee Health, et al., Case No.: 2:26-cv-635-KCD-KRH, 2026 WL 2299337 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2026), the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s FTSA claim fails because the plaintiff was—by his own allegations—a patient of Lee Health and has received or sought healthcare services.

It appears that Specht concedes that the existence of an established business relationship forecloses an FTSA claim.

Then what’s the issue?

The issue is not that Specht had an EBR with Lee Health. It is that Specht claims he revoked any such EBR. Specifically, he contends that he gave “clear instruction that he did not consent to receive such calls…”

Additionally, Specht argued that an EBR does not extend to “affiliated entities” unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included. This argument does seem to be correct. And because it was not clear which defendant placed the prerecorded calls to him, the Court held the existence of an EBR could not be resolved at the pleadings stage.

Instead, the Court agreed that further factual development is necessary to determine:

1. whether Specht had an established business relationship with Defendant Access Medical, and if not
2. whether Specht could reasonably expect Access Medical “to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by [Access Medical and the identity of [Access Medical].”

The motion to dismiss FTSA claim was denied.

What should we glean from this?

First, an EBR remains a potentially powerful defense to an FTSA claim.

More importantly, the case raises an interesting question about what happens when a consumer claims to have revoked the relationship. The court did not hold that Specht’s alleged instruction to stop communications automatically terminated the EBR. Instead, because the record was insufficient to establish which entity made the calls and whether Specht had an EBR with that entity, the court declined to resolve the issue at the pleading stage.

We’ll keep a close eye on this one and provide a further update if the case proceeds.

That’s all for now, TCPAWorld.

Hopefully see you at Contacti.IO 😊