## Facts

- Florida statutes treated insurance “rebating” (agents refunding or discounting part of their commission to insureds) as an unfair method of competition and authorized discipline, including license revocation.
- The commission at issue was embedded in insurer-filed rates; agents were barred from reducing consumers’ net cost by returning part of that commission.
- A county consumer advocacy office challenged the anti-rebate scheme as suppressing price competition among agents and preventing consumers from negotiating for lower effective prices.
- The challenge was brought under the Due Process Clause of the Florida Constitution, asserting the statutes lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
- The trial court upheld the statutes as a valid exercise of the state’s police power.
- The district court of appeal reversed and declared the statutes unconstitutional for want of a legitimate justifying state interest.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review and affirmed the invalidation in a 4–3 decision.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s anti-rebate statutes, enforced through licensing sanctions, violate the Florida Constitution’s due process guarantee because they lack a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The Court held the anti-rebate statutes unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution’s due process clause.
- The Court concluded the statutes did not bear a rational relationship to any legitimate public purpose advanced by the state.
- A dissent would have upheld the laws under a highly deferential approach to economic regulation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida constitutional due process review of economic regulation, legislation must have a rational relationship to a legitimate public purpose.
- Consumer protection and stable insurance markets may be legitimate governmental objectives, but the asserted objectives must be reasonably furthered by the challenged means.
- A blanket prohibition on commission rebating is invalid where it operates chiefly to suppress price competition and does not meaningfully advance claimed interests such as rate uniformity, prevention of deception, or administrative efficiency.
- Protection of favored economic actors from competition, without a bona fide public-welfare justification, is not a sufficient basis to sustain economic regulation under Florida due process.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court struck down insurance anti-rebate statutes as an unconstitutional exercise of police power under state due process because the ban on commission rebating lacked a rational connection to legitimate public purposes and functioned primarily to restrict competition to consumers’ detriment.


Dep’t of Ins. v. Dade Cnty. Consumer Advocate’s Off., 492 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1986)