FLORIDA WANTS A FASTER STOP?: Proposed Florida Anti-Spam Communications Act Seeks Faster Text Opt-Outs, Leaving Questions About The FTSA’s 15-Day Rule

Greetings TCPAWorld!

It’s only fitting that when something in Florida sparks interest, we’re all over it. I’m back with a follow-up on the proposed Florida Anti-Spam Communications Act.

So let’s break down the scoop. Attorney General James Uthmeier’s September 17 announcement targets impersonation scams, fake warrants, and the use of undisclosed AI voices to obtain money. Yes, you read that right! It proposes heightened felony penalties and mandatory prison time for high-volume or high-loss cases, and would make it a felony to possess or import phone farms or SIM farms (used for bulk communication).

The proposal would also require communications providers to authenticate caller ID, respond to traceback requests, and cut off a named unlawful campaign after written notice.

A provider would need to identify the traffic covered by the notice and stop carrying it. I would want to see how much time it gets to respond and how it can challenge a mistaken notice. It’s only common sense that blocking the wrong campaign could interrupt legitimate calls.

For lead sellers, this proposal would make the sale of stolen lists used to target Florida numbers a separate civil violation. The Department of Legal Affairs would also receive independent authority to investigate spam calls and texts. In turn, they’d be able to seek injunctions, restitution, and civil penalties, including against those trafficking in illegally obtained records.

Conversely, I’m thinking about legitimate lead sellers here. A stolen list and a disputed consent record present different issues. The bill text should be absolutely clear about what constitutes illegally obtained records and what knowledge is required for liability. Like, let’s just think about this for a moment. These questions become especially important when the data has passed through several different companies.

BUT HERE IS THE MAJOR FLAG TO BE AWARE OF. Sorry for the all caps, but this is important! The AG also wants tighter consent requirements and for STOP requests to be honored “within days instead of weeks.” Ummm… Okay. But what does this mean exactly in actual practice?

Well, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”) already links text-message damages claims to a STOP request and continued texts after 15 days. So to break this down further, the called party must first reply “STOP” to the number that sent the texts. So in plain terms, to bring a damages claim under this provision, the called party must not consent to the texts, and the telephone solicitor must continue texting 15 days after that notice. See Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(c).

So we’re kind of at a standstill here. This announcement doesn’t tell us whether that condition on suing would change. In practice, a shorter opt-out deadline could be significant. However, we cannot assume it would also change the time at which a plaintiff can bring a damages claim. That will depend on the actual amendment itself.

At bottom, this remains a proposal. When the bill arrives, we would want to see clear consent rules and a precise opt-out deadline. Companies already have plenty going on and enough things to sort through without having to guess what “within days” means.

As always,

Keep it legal, keep it smart, and stay ahead of the game.

Talk soon!