On April 4, 2024, the Middle District of Florida dismissed a non-consumer plaintiff’s Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim for failure to plead injury to consumers. This ruling underscores the stringent requirements for non-consumer plaintiffs under the FDUTPA, highlighting the challenges of navigating consumer protection laws in cases of alleged unfair competition.

Dispute Background

To state a claim under the FDUTPA, a plaintiff must plead (1) a deceptive or unfair trade practice, (2) causation, and (3) actual damages. When a competitor business, rather than a consumer, brings a FDUTPA claim, actual damages may include lost profits, lost revenue, reputation harm, and other damages commonly observed in business torts claims. However, the non-consumer plaintiff must also show injury to consumers in order to state a claim under the FDUTPA.

This action stems from a trademark dispute between the non-consumer plaintiff, a Limited Liability Company registered under the fictitious name Tampa Bay Spine and Sport, and the defendant, Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC. In connection with this dispute, the plaintiff brought a claim under the FDUTPA, contending that it lost business and customers as a result of the defendant’s allegedly fraudulent claim to own the “Tampa Bay Spine and Sport” trademark. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the plaintiff failed to plead causation and damages with specificity.

Legal Analysis of FDUTPA Dismissal

In deciding whether the plaintiff stated a claim under the FDUTPA, the Middle District of Florida examined whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged both actual damages and injury to a consumer. With respect to actual damages, the court determined that the plaintiff need not plead more than lost business and customers to survive a motion to dismiss. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show consumers were actually harmed by the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent trademark claim, reasoning that “merely postulating that consumers may be confused, as plaintiff did, is not sufficient to state a claim under FDUTPA.” Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s FDUTPA claim was granted.