“unfair and deceptive act or practice” but we note that the provisions of the act are to be “construed liberally.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202. A practice is unfair under the FDUTPA if it “offends established public policy” or is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla.2003). The Palmer Law Firm argues first that Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain a claim because they did not purchase services or goods from the firm and therefore are not “consumers” able to sue for a FDUTPA violation. There are several cases that support the firm’s argument that only consumers may sue for damages under FDUTPA. See, e.g., Kertesz v. Net Transactions, Ltd., 635 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349-50 (S.D.Fla.2009) (<HOLDING>); Cannova v. Breckenridge Pharm., Inc., No.
holding that rfra provides no waiver of governmental immunity  as a result the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under which he can recover the monetary damages he seeks holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea holding that erisa did not permit employee to bring claim for punitive damages against employer holding that plaintiff as a nonconsumer was not entitled to bring a claim for monetary damages under fdutpa