Anyone remember that book phenomenon, Alvin Toffler and all that? Along with pet rocks and pyramids, Alvin pretty much had the 70s covered.
Well let's go back into the FDUTPA future:
Addressing this issue, the subsection providing for a remedy of injunctive relief (§501.211(1)), has, since 1993, provided a right to declaratory and injunctive relief to “anyone aggrieved by a violation of this part. . . .” Further, that subsection provides that an aggrieved party may seek such relief “to enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate this part.” By its express terms the statute contemplates, under the appropriate circumstances and proof, that one may seek injunctive relief for future violations. Under Florida law “an injunction will not be granted where it appears that the acts complained of have already been committed and there is no showing by the pleadings and proof that there is a reasonably well grounded probability that such course of conduct will continue in the future.” City of Jacksonville v. Wilson, 27 So. 2d 108, 111 (1946)(emphasis added). See also Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The mere voluntary cessation of conduct alleged to be in violation of FDUTPA does not necessarily foreclose Off Lease from pursuing an action for injunctive relief. See Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson, 551 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that the cessation of allegedly violative conduct precluded Off Lease from seeking relief under FDUTPA for future violations. As a result, the trial court did not reach the question of whether any genuine issue of material fact is in dispute. We therefore reverse that portion of the final summary judgment and express no opinion on the merits of the claim or whether there exists any genuine issue of disputed fact.Seems to make sense, though only time will tell.