SARAH LEE SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC, D/B/A DRIVETIME, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed that FDUTPA claims brought by an individual are not private attorney general actions and therefore are not barred by an arbitration agreement's prohibition on such actions.
An individual's private FDUTPA claim is not a private attorney general action because individuals lack statutory authority to represent the enforcing agency or other persons under FDUTPA.
[1] An individual bringing a private claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act does not pursue a private attorney general action because individuals la…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanders entered into an arbitration agreement with Drivetime Car Sales that prohibited private attorney general actions. Sanders sought to bring FDUTP…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves an arbitration agreement. We write only to address the portions of the agreement that prohibit the parties from bringing private attorney general actions. The appellant argues that such a ban-precludes her from raising her Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claims as part of the arbitration. The appellant further argues that if her FDUTPA claims are precluded in arbitration under the agreement, such agreement is void as a violation of public policy. It is not necessary to address whether such a provision would be void as a violation of public policy because we find such a claim is not a private attorney general action. ;
FDUTPA states that a cause of ¡action can be brought by a. person who has suffered a loss or has been aggrieved by a violation of FDUTPA, an interested party, or an enforcing authority. See §§ 501.206, 501.207, & 501.211, Fla. Stat. (2015). An interested party is defined as a person who has been affected by a violation of FDUT-PA or by an order of the enforcing authority. § 501.203(6), Fla. Stat. (2015). An enforcing authority is defined as the office of the state attorney or the Department of Legal Affairs depending upon the situation as stated in section 501.203(2), Florida Statutes (2015). Based on the definition, an individual does not qualify as an enforcing authority. Thus, an individual’s private claims for violations of FDUTPA cannot be deemed a private attorney general action since a person has no statutory right to represent the enforcing agency or another person under FDUTPA.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, O.J., MAKAR, AND JAY, JJ., CONCUR.