A Florida federal court has allowed a claim under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act to proceed, despite the defendant’s assertion that an established business relationship barred the lawsuit.
The case, Specht v. Lee Health System, Inc. d/b/a Lee Health, was filed in the Middle District of Florida and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-635-KCD-KRH, with a ruling issued on 11 August 2026.
The defendant, Lee Health, argued the plaintiff’s FTSA claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff was, by his own admission, a patient who had received or sought healthcare services from the organisation.
The established business relationship, commonly referred to as an EBR, is a recognised defence under the FTSA and can serve as a bar to certain telephone solicitation claims.
The plaintiff, Specht, appeared to concede that the existence of an EBR would foreclose his FTSA claim, but he argued that the relationship had been revoked before the calls in question were made.
Specht contended that he gave “clear instruction that he did not consent to receive such calls,” which he argued was sufficient to terminate any prior established business relationship with Lee Health.
He further argued that an EBR does not automatically extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect those entities to be included within the scope of that relationship.
The court found that because it was not clear which defendant had placed the prerecorded calls to Specht, the existence of an EBR could not be resolved at the pleadings stage and denied the motion to dismiss.
The court did not hold that Specht’s alleged instruction to stop communications automatically terminated the EBR, leaving the revocation question open for further factual development.
While the FTSA does not define the term “established business relationship,” Florida courts have historically looked to federal law interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for interpretive guidance on this point.
Under federal law, an EBR is defined as a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber, based on a purchase or transaction within the preceding 18 months or an inquiry within the preceding three months.
The ruling highlights that an EBR remains a potentially powerful defence to FTSA claims, but the case introduces significant uncertainty around what happens when a consumer claims to have actively revoked that relationship.
The question of whether a consumer’s explicit instruction to cease contact is sufficient to dissolve an EBR is likely to be central to how this litigation develops in the months ahead.
Businesses that rely on established business relationships as a shield against FTSA liability should monitor this case closely, as its outcome could shape compliance obligations across industries dealing with existing customer relationships.