Law / United States / 
Florida
Florida Security of Communications Act, Interception and Civil Remedies
In force.
An interception and recording consent rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Consent, Prohibition
What it requires
- Get the prior consent of every party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication before intercepting, recording, or disclosing its contents; consent from only one party, including yourself as a party to the call, is not enough under Florida law.
- This all-party consent duty reaches an oral, face-to-face conversation only where the speaker exhibited an expectation that it would not be intercepted under circumstances justifying that expectation, and does not reach a public oral communication uttered at a public meeting; it reaches an ordinary telephone call without that qualifier.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: Gesten v. American Strategic Insurance Corp., No. 4D21-1851 (Fla. 4th DCA ) (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionYes
Criminal exposure note
An intentional violation of the interception prohibition is ordinarily a felony of the third degree. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(4)(b) reduces this to a misdemeanor of the first degree or, for the radio portion of a cellular, cordless, land mobile, or paging communication, a misdemeanor of the second degree, but only for a first offense that is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for commercial gain and involves an unscrambled radio communication of the kinds the paragraph lists.
Statutory damages
The court awards actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee where appropriate.
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Per person minimum
- 1,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
A private civil action under Fla. Stat. § 934.10; criminal prosecution by the State.
Settledness
- As of
- Case link
- https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/839265/opinion/211851_DC13_06012022_095703_i.pdf
- Case citation
- Gesten v. American Strategic Insurance Corp., No. 4D21-1851 (Fla. 4th DCA )
- Open questions
- Does a notice that a call or chat may be recorded, followed by the other party continuing, amount to "prior consent" by "all of the parties to the communication" under section 934.03(2)(d)?
What this law does
Florida makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept, or procure another person to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication, and lawful interception requires the prior consent of every party to the communication, not merely one.
The all-party rule reaches an oral communication only when the speaker exhibited an expectation that it would not be intercepted under circumstances justifying that expectation, so it does not reach a public oral communication uttered at a public meeting, while a wire communication (an ordinary telephone call) carries no such qualifier and is covered regardless.
A person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation has a civil action for actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 a day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorney's fees, brought within 2 years of discovering the violation; an intentional violation is ordinarily a third-degree felony, reduced to a first- or second-degree misdemeanor only for a first, non-tortious, non-commercial interception of specific kinds of unscrambled radio communications the statute lists. The provisions this entry describes came into force on different days.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app records calls, records text chat, processes voice recordings or deploys a chatbot.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .