In a recent case that is interesting reading for both antitrust lawyers and insurance agents, which probably does not happen often, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal (“Second DCA”) held that a commission-splitting agreement—even a very lopsided one—should not be analyzed under Florida’s restrictive covenant statute (Fla. Stat. § 542.335) because such an agreement is not a “restraint of trade” under Florida law. Capital Wealth Advisors, LLC v. Capital Wealth Advisors, Inc., --- So. 3d ---, Case No. 2D20-2446 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 21, 2021).
The written opinion by the Second DCA is most interesting for what it does not discuss, given the facts outlined in the opinion, which are the following:
In February 2011, the Agent and the Company entered into a commission agreement (the Agreement). Under the Agreement, the Company would pay the Agent a percentage of insurance commissions when the Company sold insurance products through a network of referral sources cultivated by the Agent. The Agent received one hundred percent of the commission for the sale of any products that were originated and sold by the Agent. It received seventy-five percent of the commission for the sale of products that were originated by the Company but sold by the Agent, and between fifty-five percent and seventy-five percent for the sale of products (depending on the total amount of the commission) that the Agent originated but the Company sold. The Agreement provided that this commission sharing arrangement would survive termination and continue in perpetuity[.]
Id. at 1. Thus, one reading the facts thinks that, for sure, this opinion will address an argument by the litigants regarding the enforceability of a perpetual contract. But, instead, the opinion explains why the trial court was incorrect to conclude that the perpetual contract is unenforceable as a restraint of trade.
The Second DCA began its analysis with the fundamental question of what constitutes a “restraint of trade,” given that one need not reach the question of compliance with Fla. Stat. § 542.335 unless the matter presented is actually a trade restraint. The opinion explained:
However, we need not reach the reasonableness of the scope of the Agreement or whether it is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest under section 542.335 unless and until we determine that the commission sharing arrangement is, in fact, a restraint on trade or commerce under section 542.18.
Section 542.18 provides that “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.” The Company argues that, because the Agreement imposes a “substantial financial disincentive” on the Company, it constitutes a “restraint of trade or commerce” as that phrase is used in the statute. However, by the Appellees’ rationale, every referral arrangement, fee-splitting deal, or commission structure would constitute a restraint of trade governed by the statute—because each of these creates a disincentive, substantial or otherwise, to the individual or entity that enters into them. For example, a real estate agent might be less motivated to get up off the couch on a Saturday afternoon to show a home to a potential buyer if that buyer was referred pursuant to an agreement under which the agent must pay the referrer a percentage of whatever fee she might be paid upon a sale. But that alone does not transform the referral arrangement into a restraint on trade.
The restraint prohibited by section 542.18 is on trade or commerce in general—not on the competitiveness or incentives of individual actors…. Section 542.18 does not prohibit every agreement that might reduce—or even substantially reduce—the competitiveness or profit motives of an individual, a business, or even a group of individuals or businesses who enter into the agreement.
Id. at 2.
Thus, although this commission-splitting agreement was a bad deal for one of the parties, that did not render the deal unenforceable as a restraint on trade. The Second DCA continued with its analysis:
The Company describes how good a deal this is for the Agent, and how correspondingly severe the effects of the deal have been to the Appellees. The Agreement might very well have been—or became, in light of circumstances developed after its execution—quite advantageous to the Agent and disadvantageous to the Company and Individuals. This does not make it a restraint of trade or commerce.
And just as the focus on the lopsidedness or open-endedness of the particular deal into which the Appellees entered gets the cart before the horse, so does a premature examination of the geographical or durational scope of the Agreement elide the threshold determination of whether it is a restraint on trade to begin with. While the Agreement might now be financially unfavorable to the Appellees due to the size of the list of referral sources and the enduring obligation to share commissions earned from prior introductions, that is the deal that was struck and under which the Appellees operated for some time. And it does not restrain trade or commerce in the insurance sales market. The Agreement merely requires the Company to split commissions; it does not even operate as a barrier to the Agent’s ability to sell its own insurance products to potential buyers, including to clients of the referral sources listed on Exhibit B. The Agreement does not negatively affect consumers’ ability to procure insurance products since both the Company and Agent can freely compete for the same business.
Id. at 3.
The mottos of this story: (i) a commission-splitting agreement should not be evaluated as a restraint of trade; (ii) a bad deal—even a bad deal in perpetuity—without more does not render the deal subject to antitrust scrutiny; and (iii) only restrictive covenants that restrain trade—not all “restrictive” covenants—are subject to the statutory limitations and requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. § 542.335.
- Partner
Matthew J. Meyer is a partner in the Tampa office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Business Litigation Practice Group. Matt is an accomplished litigator, experienced in complex commercial, business, employment ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Strikes Down the DOL’s Increased Salary Thresholds for Executive, Administrative, Professional, And Highly Compensated Employee Overtime Exemptions
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Construction
- Department of Labor
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Construction Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- Salary
- Competition
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Appeals
- Construction
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Trusts and Estates
- Public Private Partnership
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Development/Land Use
- Technology
- IP Litigation
- Privacy
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Business
- Public Finance
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Contracting
- Health Care
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Property Tax
- Government
- Conveyances
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Cyber fraud
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- Bid Protest
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- International
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens and encumbrances
- Liens
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Consumer Protection
- Power Generation
- Regulation
- Venue
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- FINRA
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Eviction
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Dispute Resolution
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Patents - Obviousness
- Commercial Brokerage
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Design Professionals
- Certiorari
- Forum Selection
- email hacking
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Designer Liability
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Banking
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Fintech
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016