Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of Atty. Gen.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a FDUTPA claim could be based on communications to out-of-state consumers \where the allegations . . . reflect that the offending conduct occurred entirely within this state\
• finding no FDUTPA violation where consumers assumed that credit card offered would be Visa or MasterCard when neither was guaranteed in the language of the offer
• finding that the FDUTPA applies to non-resident: consumers
• noting the FDUTPA “seeks 11 “Unpublished opinions are not controlling authority and are persuasive only insofar as their legal analysis warrants.” Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Const., Inc., 487 F.3d 1340, 1345 (11th Cir. 2007
• “the new standard considers as material only deceptions that are likely to cause injury to a reasonable relying consumer, whereas the old standard reached deceptions that a consumer might have considered important”
• \[W]e can discern no legislative intent for the Department to be precluded from taking corrective measures under FDUTPA even where those persons affected by the conduct reside outside of the state.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).