What Has Changed in Florida Dog Law

Florida has changed six significant parts of its dog law since 2020 — bite liability, filing deadlines, comparative fault, breed ordinances, dangerous dog procedure, service and support animals, and pet purchase. A great deal of the material still circulating online predates one or more of them.

This page exists because no one maintains a dated record of those changes in one place. Each entry gives the effective date, the operative text, and what it replaced — so you can check whether something you read elsewhere is current.

Last reviewed: 19 September 2026. Reviewed quarterly — 1 Oct, 1 Jan, 1 Apr. If you find something out of date here, tell us and we will correct it.

2026 — pet purchase rules amended again

Chapter 2026-76, amending § 828.29. The second amendment in two years, following ch. 2024-258.

Section 828.29 governs buying a dog from a pet dealer. As it now stands:

The dealer must supply a certificate of veterinary inspection showing “the age, sex, breed, color, and health record” and listing every vaccine and deworming with “manufacturer, vaccine, type, lot number, expiration date, and the dates of administration.” — § 828.29(3)(a)–(b)
Two different windows: illness, disease or parasites within 30 days of sale; a congenital or hereditary disorder, or misrepresentation, within 1 year. — § 828.29(5)
Three remedies, consumer’s choice: refund including interest and tax plus reasonable veterinary costs; an exchange animal “of the consumer’s choice of equivalent value” plus veterinary costs; or keep the animal and recover veterinary costs.
Punitive damages “not less than $2,500 at the discretion of the court.” — § 828.29(10)
A written notice of these rights “in 14-point boldface type”, signed by the purchaser. — § 828.29(12)

Why it is worth flagging: the one-year window for hereditary conditions is routinely reported as thirty days. Hip dysplasia and heart defects rarely present inside a month, so that error costs people valid claims. The full explanation.

History: s. 4, ch. 2024-258; s. 2, ch. 2026-76.

October 2025 — dangerous dog rules rewritten

Chapter 2025-61, amending § 767.12.

The most substantial rewrite of Florida’s dangerous dog procedure in years, and the least reported.

A sworn affidavit is now required. Animal control “shall investigate reported incidents involving any dog that may be dangerous” and must “require a sworn affidavit from any person… desiring to have a dog classified as dangerous.” A phone complaint no longer starts a classification case.

Confiscation is now triggered by a measured score. A dog that “has killed a human being or has bitten a human being and left a bite mark that scores 5 or higher on the Dunbar bite scale must be immediately confiscated.” That replaced a judgement call with a graded assessment — which means how a treating clinician describes a wound now has consequences beyond the patient’s own care.

Owner obligations after classification expanded. A classified dangerous dog now requires a certificate of registration, current rabies vaccination, a proper enclosure with a warning sign, permanent identification by microchip, sterilisation, and liability insurance of at least $100,000. Microchipping and sterilisation are new.

Hearing timetable. Written notice by registered mail or certified delivery; the owner may request a hearing within 7 calendar days; the hearing is held not later than 21 days and not sooner than 5 days after the request.

Why it matters to a victim: the $100,000 insurance requirement creates a statutory floor where a dog was already classified before it bit. Either the policy exists, or the owner breached a statutory duty — and that is a clean negligence theory to plead alongside strict liability. The dangerous dog framework.

1 October 2023 — breed-specific ordinances lose their last exemption

House Bill 941, amending § 767.14.

Florida had restricted breed-specific local regulation for years, but exempted ordinances adopted before 1 October 1990. Exactly two survived on that basis: Miami-Dade County’s pit bull ban and the City of Sunrise’s 1989 penning-and-muzzling ordinance.

HB 941 deleted the grandfather clause. Section 767.14 now permits local safety ordinances “provided that no such regulation is specific to breed, weight, or size,” with no exception for old ones. Both ordinances lost their basis on that date.

The bill also barred governmental public housing authorities from restricting dogs by breed, weight, or size.

Still widely reported incorrectly. Material written before October 2023 describing the Miami-Dade ban as in force is still online, still confidently worded, and still wrong. It remains one of the most common factual errors about Florida dog law.

What it did not change: liability. Section 767.04 has never mentioned breed. And § 767.14 binds local governments, not insurers — a carrier may still maintain a restricted-breed list. The preemption picture.

24 March 2023 — the filing deadline halved, and a fault cliff appeared

House Bill 837 (chapter 2023-15). Two separate changes, both consequential.

The limitations period

For causes of action accruing on or after 24 March 2023, the period for an action founded on negligence dropped from four years to two. Claims accruing before that date generally remain under the old rule.

An unresolved wrinkle specific to dog bites. Section 95.11 has no line for dog bites. A § 767.04 claim arguably lands in two categories: § 95.11(3)(e), “an action founded on a statutory liability,” at four years; or § 95.11(5)(a), “an action founded on negligence,” at two. Section 767.04 creates liability by statute, which is a real argument for four.

Most practitioner content asserts two flatly. That is prudent but it is not the same as settled, and we have found no controlling authority resolving it. House position: work from two years. Filing early costs nothing; being wrong the other way ends the claim. The full analysis.

Comparative fault

HB 837 also amended § 768.81 to bar recovery entirely for a party “found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm.”

The reason this reaches dog bite claims: § 768.81(1)(c) defines “negligence action” to expressly include claims “based upon a theory of negligence, strict liability, products liability…” — and forecloses label-shopping with “the substance of an action, not conclusory terms used by a party, determines whether an action is a negligence action.”

So Florida’s dog bite comparative-negligence provision is no longer only the percentage reduction written into § 767.04. There is a cliff at 51%. How that works in practice.

2020 — service animals and support animals separated

Chapter 2020-76, creating § 760.27 and amending § 413.08. One session, two statutes, and the distinction between them is the most misreported thing in Florida animal law.

§ 413.08 — service animals, public accommodations

A service animal is one “trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability”, and for the access provisions is “limited to a dog or miniature horse.”
Emotional support animals are expressly excluded: “This paragraph does not apply to an emotional support animal as defined in s. 760.27.” — § 413.08(6)(b)
A business may remove any animal, service animal included, if it “is out of control and the animal’s handler does not take effective action to control it, the animal is not housebroken, or the animal’s behavior poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others.” — § 413.08(3)(f)
The handler “is liable for damage caused by a service animal” where the business charges others for pet damage. — § 413.08(3)(d)
Misrepresenting oneself as using a service animal is a second-degree misdemeanour plus 30 hours of community service. — § 413.08(9)

§ 760.27 — emotional support animals, housing

No training requirement; an ESA provides “therapeutic emotional support by virtue of its presence.” — § 760.27(1)(a)
A housing provider may not charge extra: the person “may not be required to pay extra compensation for such animal.” — § 760.27(2)
A provider may not request “information that discloses the diagnosis or severity of a person’s disability or any medical records.” — § 760.27(3)(a)
An ESA registration “of any kind… is not, by itself, sufficient information to reliably establish” disability or need. — § 760.27(3)(c)
Denial only where the animal “poses a direct threat to the safety or health of others.”

The error to avoid: § 760.27 contains no penalty for fraudulent ESA documentation. The criminal provision people cite is § 413.08(9), which is about service animals in public accommodations — a different animal, setting and statute. Service animals · ESAs in housing

History: ss. 1–2, ch. 2020-76.

What has not changed

Worth stating, because the volume of recent amendment invites the assumption that everything moved.

§ 767.04 — the bite statute itself. Strict liability from the first bite, “regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness.” Unamended since 1997.
The “Bad Dog” sign defence, and its exceptions — under-6, the owner’s own negligence, and the sign’s statutory conditions. Same text.
§ 767.01 — owner liable for “any damage done by the owner’s dog to a person” or to a domestic animal or livestock. Still the route for non-bite injuries.
§ 767.16 — law enforcement canines remain exempt from the dangerous dog provisions.
A service animal that bites is still subject to § 767.04. Access rights under § 413.08 are not immunity from liability, and nothing in the 2020 statutes changed that.

How to check this yourself

Every statute above is on Online Sunshine, the Florida Legislature’s official site, at leg.state.fl.us. Each section carries a History note listing the chapter laws that amended it — which is how you confirm whether what you are reading is current.

We quote statutes exactly rather than paraphrasing, for the same reason: a paraphrase of § 767.04 that drops “Bad Dog” or softens “lawfully” changes what the statute means.

Journalists, practitioners and researchers are welcome to cite this page. If something here is wrong or has gone stale, we would rather hear about it than not.