USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Patricia M Flanagan, Camila Chediak, Brian J Paul and Jodi-Ann Tillman, Shutts & Bowen LLP
In addition, the claim concerning the promotion of an altered sexual depiction implicated Florida’s devel - oping legal treatment of non-consensual manipu - lated imagery. Florida law recognises civil liability for the knowing dissemination or promotion of sexually explicit material that is altered to depict an identifi - able person without consent. The jury’s verdict on this claim underscores Florida’s willingness to impose tort liability for harms caused by deepfakes and similar digital fabrications, even where traditional defamation remedies may be procedurally limited. Following the verdict, the district court allowed recov - ery only on the IIED and altered sexual depiction claims, reducing the damages from the jury’s original award and reserving issues of fees and costs. The case highlights several Florida-specific legal realities: the strength of statutory protections for media defend - ants in defamation cases, the high but surmounta - ble bar for IIED claims, and Florida’s emerging role in addressing civil liability for deepfake and digitally manipulated sexual content. Megan Pete v Cooper offers a useful framework for predicting how a Florida court would likely decide a civil case involving deepfakes or AI-altered images. The case shows that, even where defamation claims may be limited by Florida’s media-defendant protec - tions and pre-suit notice requirements, courts and juries are receptive to alternative tort theories when the harm arises from non-consensual, manipulated imagery. In particular, the jury’s findings on intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction demonstrate that Florida law can reach AI-driven misconduct without needing to resolve difficult questions about truth, opinion, or jour - nalistic privileges. For a Florida case involving the knowing creation or dissemination of a sexually explicit AI-altered image of an identifiable person, a close analysis of Pete sug - gests a harm-focused approach. A court would likely scrutinise the defendant’s knowledge and intent and could allow claims based on emotional distress or altered sexual depictions to proceed even if defama - tion is procedurally barred. The case signals that Flori - da courts are prepared to adapt existing tort doctrines to address deepfakes, particularly where the conduct
is persistent, sexual in nature, and causes concrete personal harm. Case spotlight: beyond borders: US trade mark registration and jurisdictional exposure in Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v Polygroup Macau Limited, 140 F.4th 1304 (11th Cir. 2025) The Eleventh Circuit’s 2025 decision in Jekyll Island- State Park Authority v Polygroup Macau Limited clari - fies how trade mark registration and related market activity can anchor specific personal jurisdiction over foreign IP holding companies in US courts in the Elev - enth Circuit, which includes Florida district courts. Jekyll Island–State Park Authority, a Georgia state entity operating the Summer Waves Water Park and owning the federal SUMMER WAVES trade mark, sued Polygroup Macau Limited, a British Virgin Islands IP holding company, for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, and cancellation of Polygroup’s SUMMER WAVES registrations, alleging Polygroup registered nearly identical marks and allowed related companies to sell infringing products in the United States; the district court dismissed for lack of per - sonal jurisdiction, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The Eleventh Circuit held, as a matter of first impres - sion, that trade mark registration can be considered compelling evidence of purposeful availment for minimum-contacts analysis in specific jurisdiction. The court concluded Polygroup Macau purposefully availed itself of US law by registering and maintain - ing dozens of trade marks with the USPTO, allowing sister companies and their customers unrestricted use of those marks in US commerce, and enforc - ing IP rights in US courts. Applying Rule 4 (k)(2) (“the national long-arm statute”), the court found the first two prongs satisfied and held that specific jurisdic - tion comported with Fifth Amendment due process, emphasising that a strict “but-for” causal relationship is not required where the defendant’s contacts show a strong relation among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. The court identified three categories of contacts establishing purposeful availment: • USPTO registrations and maintenance;
686 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook