Philip A. Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff failed to properly allege the elements of a FDUTPA claim where the “express terms of the reservation agreement” undermined the claim that the agreement was deceptive
• holding that the relevant standard “requires a showing of probable, not possible, deception.”
• explaining that federal courts have held “a deceptive practice is one that is likely to mislead consumers”
• affirming the dismissal of an FDUTPA claim where the words of the contract removed the “possibility that a reasonable purchaser would be misled”
• dismissing FDUTPA claim where the form at issue explicitly warned the consumer that it was not a binding purchase agreement
• explaining the standard under Florida law to “require[] a showing of probable, not possible, deception that is likely to cause injury to a reasonable relying consumer.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).