Florida lawmakers revise phone robocall law, befuddling consumers with friendlier regulations
Florida’s battle against unwanted robocalls and texts took a positive turn two years ago with the passage of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). This bipartisan bill required telemarketers to obtain prior written consent before contacting consumers in the state. Additionally, for the first time, citizens were empowered to take legal action against telemarketers who continued to harass them. Cheri Aul, a Pinellas County resident, filed one of the first class-action lawsuits under the FTSA, after David’s Bridal inundated her with numerous unwanted text messages. However, just as Florida’s new law seemed to be making a difference, state lawmakers shifted their focus to favor big businesses rather than protecting consumers.
The new bill, HB 761, aimed to narrow the definition of an auto-dialer and allowed businesses to call or text consumers if they had an established business relationship or in response to an inquiry. It also required consumers to reply “STOP” before filing a suit in case of receiving a text message in violation of the FTSA. Furthermore, businesses were given a 15-day safe harbor period after a consumer sent a “STOP” message. Advocates of the changes argued that the FTSA had resulted in frivolous lawsuits, destabilizing legitimate businesses. However, despite these claims, no evidence of such lawsuits was presented.
Florida Representative Mike Beltran, who had previously supported the 2021 FTSA law, expressed his disappointment in the changes. He believed that consumer protection had been overridden in favor of big businesses. The motivations behind these amendments remained unclear, but campaign finance records hinted at a possible explanation. Companies that lobbied for changes to the law had donated significant sums to state Senator Clay Yarborough and state Representative Bob Rommel, both Republicans. Rommel, the GOP chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, received $25,000 from the Committee of Automobile Retailers, which advocated strongly for changes to the law.
Consumer attorney Billy Howard suggested that money played a significant role in driving the new legislation. He argued that businesses like the Chamber of Commerce, the automobile industry, and David’s Bridal were motivated by their desire to contact consumers without their permission. Aul’s class-action lawsuit against David’s Bridal ultimately went unresolved as the company filed for bankruptcy two years after she filed suit. Aul now fears that the new law will allow for the return of the unwanted messages she fought so hard to stop.
To combat unsolicited calls and texts, consumers have the option to subscribe to Florida’s Do Not Call list. The battle between consumer protection and business interests continues, with the new legislation favoring the latter. As for Aul, she believes that when decisions are influenced by money, it is the consumer who ultimately loses out.
