Yes. The boss can be sued personally. The law that protects people from unfair business practices is meant to be strong. If a company does something illegal, the law allows you to also sue the individual person in charge who was directly involved in the scheme. KC Leisure's lawsuit claimed that Haber knew the rules, helped break them, and helped create misleading documents to trick them. Because he was a 'direct participant' in the wrongdoing, he can't just hide behind the company's name. He has to answer for his actions in court.

Yes, KC Leisure's lawsuit properly accused Mr. Haber of breaking the law himself. KC Leisure showed the three things needed to sue for unfair practices under Florida law: (1) Relay Transportation did sneaky, unfair things by not giving required papers and telling lies, which broke national rules; (2) KC Leisure bought the franchise because of these sneaky, unfair things; and (3) KC Leisure lost money by paying $50,000 and other costs for the franchise. The lawsuit also said that Mr. Haber directly participated in the unfair practices, knew they were breaking rules but did it anyway, helped make tricky paperwork, and lied about how much money KC Leisure would need. That's enough to say Mr. Haber broke the law himself. The lawsuit also said Mr. Haber broke another Florida law by helping make money numbers that lied about how well the franchise would do and how much it would cost, which made KC Leisure want to buy it.

I agree with the decision because the evidence shows Mr. Haber didn’t just work in the background—he personally made choices that broke the rules. I differ from the majority by stressing that his own actions, not just what his company did, led to the harm, which means his personal role is especially important.

I agree with the decision because the facts clearly show Mr. Haber took part in the wrong actions. I differ from the majority by pointing out that his personal choices—making false financial entries and not sharing required facts—mean he should be held responsible on his own, not just as part of a company.

A "claim for damages under FDUTPA has three elements:(1) a deceptive act or unfair practice;(2) causation; and (3) actual damages."

"It has long been the law in Florida that in order to proceed against an individual using a FDUTPA violation theory an aggrieved party must allege that the individual was a direct participant in the improper dealings."

A] n individual may be liable for corporate practices... once corporate liability is established. In order to prove individual liability it is necessary to show that an individual defendant actively participated in or had some measure of control over the corporation's deceptive practices

The case law demonstrates, however, that under the Federal Trade Commission Act an individual may be liable for corporate practices in violation of that statute once corporate liability is established.

Under the FDUTPA, plaintiffs need not demonstrate that the defendant was the principal actor involved in the violative acts, or that the defendant initiated those acts.

Yes. A cause of action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) can be stated against an individual corporate officer who was a direct participant in the alleged deceptive acts. FDUTPA is interpreted with great weight given to the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) and its interpretations by federal courts. Under the FTC Act, an individual may be held liable for corporate violations if they actively participated in or had control over the corporation's deceptive practices. Similarly, Florida case law establishes that to hold an individual liable under FDUTPA, a plaintiff must allege that the individual was a 'direct participant in the improper dealings,' and it is not necessary to pierce the corporate veil. KC Leisure's complaint sufficiently alleged that Haber was a direct participant by claiming he knew of the disclosure rules, chose to ignore them, helped devise a scheme to evade them, and assisted in preparing inaccurate financial documents provided to KC Leisure. Therefore, the complaint stated a valid cause of action against Haber personally.

Yes, the complaint states causes of action against Mr. Haber individually for violation of the FDUTPA and the Florida Franchise Act. KC Leisure has sufficiently alleged the three elements required for an FDUTPA claim: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice by Relay Transportation in failing to provide required disclosures and making misrepresentations, which is a violation of the FTC's Franchise Rule; (2) causation, in that KC Leisure relied on the lack of disclosures and misrepresentations in purchasing the franchise; and (3) actual damages incurred by KC Leisure in paying the franchise fee and startup expenses. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Mr. Haber was a direct participant in the deceptive practices, having actual knowledge of the Franchise Rule violations and intentionally electing to ignore the requirements, participating in drafting misleading documents, and misrepresenting the total investment required. This is sufficient to state an FDUTPA claim against Mr. Haber individually. The complaint also states a claim against Mr. Haber under the Florida Franchise Act by alleging that he participated in developing and authorizing misleading financial projections that misrepresented the chances of success and total investment of the franchise, inducing KC Leisure to purchase it.

I join the reversal decision because the record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Haber actively participated in the deceptive practices. While the majority opinion adequately states that the complaint meets the threshold for an FDUTPA claim, I differ by emphasizing that his direct involvement—specifically, his role in misrepresenting financial disclosures and drafting misleading documents—warrants a sharper focus on individual culpability. This nuanced interpretation is necessary because personal responsibility under the Act should not be diluted by corporate structures.

I concur with the reversal because the facts demonstrate Mr. Haber’s deliberate participation in the fraudulent scheme. Unlike the majority opinion, which focuses on the sufficiency of the complaint, I place greater emphasis on the statutory requirement for individual accountability. I contend that his intentional drafting of misleading financial projections and failure to provide proper disclosures directly establish his personal liability, a point that must be underscored because it drives home the need for a robust application of FDUTPA in holding individuals accountable.

KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot