If you’re searching this name, there’s a good chance you’re a business owner who’s website allows traffic from visitors in the state of Florida who just received a demand letter or complaint invoking the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) and you’re trying to figure out who Zachary Zermay and Zermay Law actually are before you respond. This piece covers what’s publicly documented about the attorney and firm, and lays out the Florida wiretapping litigation landscape they operate in, so you understand both who you’re dealing with and what the underlying law actually says. If you’d like help dealing with a data privacy lawsuit we are a privacy software solution that can provide you a complimentary privacy audit and make your site compliant with not only the Florida Wiretapping law but with over 100+ laws and protection from the 50+ plaintiffs that are pursuing these claims.

Who is Zachary Zermay?

Zachary Z. Zermay is a consumer protection attorney licensed to practice in both Florida and California. He is the managing partner of Zermay Law, P.A., based in Coral Gables, Florida, and is also affiliated with Robinson Zermay LLP, a firm with independent law offices in Florida and California. He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 2017 and is admitted to practice before several federal courts relevant to this topic, including the U.S. District Courts for the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida — the exact federal districts where the current wave of FSCA website-tracking litigation is being filed — as well as the Central and Northern Districts of California.

What does Zermay Law actually practice?

Based on the firm’s own public materials, Zermay Law describes itself as a consumer protection, class action, and personal injury firm serving clients in Florida and California. While they are a consumer protection firm which has become a growing trend of firms who have taken up privacy suits Zermay law also specializes in these practice areas:

• TCPA litigation — unwanted robocalls and spam text messages under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
• FDCPA claims — unfair or abusive debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
• Consumer protection and class actions more broadly, including a notable 2020 case in which the firm sued another law firm, Gunn Coble LLP, alleging it sent unlawful spam texts to try to derail a separate class action settlement.
• Personal injury and lemon law claims.

Beyond these publicly listed practice areas, Zermay Law is also named among the group of active plaintiffs’ firms and counsel operating in the broader “web wiretapping” litigation space — the wave of lawsuits applying older wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes to modern website tracking technology — alongside firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, in industry legal-alert coverage tracking this litigation trend. That space spans California’s CIPA and, increasingly, Florida’s FSCA, given how closely the two statutes’ underlying theories track each other.

The Florida Security of Communications Act, explained

Regardless of which specific firm sent a demand letter, understanding the underlying statute matters more than the letterhead. The FSCA (Florida Statutes Chapter 934) was enacted in 1969, modeled on the federal Wiretap Act, and amended in 1988 to extend its protections to electronic communications. Florida is an all-party consent state: everyone party to a communication must consent before it can be intercepted or recorded, a stricter standard than the one-party consent baseline under federal law.

How FSCA went from dormant to a litigation wave

1. 2021 and earlier — courts said no. In Jacome v. Spirit Airlines (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., June 17, 2021), a Florida court declined to apply the FSCA to website session-replay technology, finding that ordinary web interactions — clicks, scrolls, page views — weren’t the “contents” of a communication the statute was written to protect. Similar reasoning led to dismissals in other early cases, including one against Costco.
2. March 6, 2025 — the turning point. In W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc. (M.D. Fla.), a federal court refused to dismiss an FSCA claim alleging that tracking pixels on a hospital system’s website and patient portal captured “substantive” communications about patient health conditions, not just behavioral metadata. That distinction — content versus metadata — is what let the claim survive where earlier ones failed.
3. Within 90 days — demand letters at volume. Plaintiffs’ firms began sending FSCA demand letters at scale following the Orlando Health ruling, first concentrated in healthcare and expanding to general consumer-facing websites.
4. Ongoing — the pen register theory. A more aggressive parallel theory has also emerged under FSCA’s pen register and trap-and-trace provision (Section 934.31), arguing that analytics scripts and pixels capturing visitor identifiers function like the physical call-routing devices the provision was originally written to cover — a theory that remains actively contested in the courts.
5. Magenheim v. Nike, trial set November 2, 2026 (S.D. Fla.). This is the case to watch: the first major FSCA pixel claim expected to reach a jury. A plaintiff verdict would likely accelerate the wave nationally; a defense win or settlement would likely dampen it. Either outcome will reshape settlement leverage on every open demand letter in the state.

What an FSCA demand letter typically alleges

Across the current wave generally, FSCA demand letters and complaints tend to follow a consistent pattern: the website deployed a third-party tracking tool (commonly Meta Pixel, Google Analytics/Floodlight, or a session-replay tool like FullStory or Hotjar) that transmitted visitor data to a third party without the “prior, informed consent” the FSCA’s all-party consent standard requires. Statutory damages under Fla. Stat. § 934.10 are not less than $1,000 per violation, or $100 per day of violation, whichever is greater — a structure that can aggregate quickly across a website’s full visitor base once framed as a class claim.

What to do if you receive a demand letter

1. Don’t ignore it, and don’t assume it’s a scam. Whether the sender is Zermay Law or any other firm active in this space, FSCA claims are grounded in a real statute with a documented litigation track record treat the deadline in the letter as real. Get a free privacy audit courtesy of
2. Identify the specific technology named. The claim’s strength often turns on whether the tool in question captured substantive content (form inputs, health or financial details) versus basic behavioral metadata — the exact distinction that separated Jacome from Orlando Health.
3. Retain Florida privacy litigation counsel promptly to evaluate the letter against your specific tracking setup and consent mechanism.
4. Audit your actual tag inventory against what’s alleged — confirm what’s firing, what data it captures, and whether it’s gated behind a genuine consent mechanism rather than a decorative banner.
5. Watch Magenheim v. Nike. Its November 2026 trial outcome will materially affect settlement posture on every open Florida wiretapping matter, including any letter you may be negotiating right now.

How Captain Compliance helps

Whichever firm’s letterhead is on the demand you received, the underlying exposure is the same: a tracking pixel or session-replay tool firing before a Florida visitor has genuinely consented or in many cases it’s been California and now Arizona. Captain Compliance continuously scans your site for these tools, verifies consent-gating is actually enforced rather than cosmetic, and keeps documentation ready in case a demand letter arrives. We have become the defacto data privacy software solution to keep websites and mobile apps compliant and protected against these privacy claims.

FAQs

Who is Zachary Zermay?

Zachary Z. Zermay is a consumer protection attorney and managing partner of Zermay Law, P.A., based in Coral Gables, Florida, also affiliated with Robinson Zermay LLP. He is licensed in Florida and California and admitted to practice in the federal district courts covering both states, including the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida.

What kind of cases does Zermay Law handle?

Publicly documented practice areas include TCPA robocall and spam text litigation, FDCPA debt collection defense, broader consumer protection class actions, personal injury, and lemon law. The firm is also named among active counsel in the broader web wiretapping litigation space like the trap and trace cases that are filed under CDAFA and that also includes California’s CIPA and Florida’s FSCA.

What is the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA)?

The FSCA is Florida’s 1969 wiretapping statute, requiring all parties to a communication to consent before it can be intercepted or recorded. Since a March 2025 federal court ruling in W.W. v. Orlando Health, plaintiffs have applied it to website tracking pixels and session-replay tools, generating a large wave of demand letters and lawsuits across Florida. This is different than what Robert Bell and Vivek Shah is doing as a pro-se plaintiff

What should I do if I receive an FSCA demand letter?

Talk to Captain Compliance about getting their software on your website to be compliant and if you need to retain Florida privacy litigation counsel promptly we can tell you who we have seen work on the defense side and is licensed to practice in the state. We also recommend to do a privacy audit to see your website’s actual tracking technology against what the letter alleges, and don’t ignore the stated deadline. FSCA claims are grounded in a real, actively litigated statute, and statutory damages of at least $1,000 per violation (or $100 per day, whichever is greater) can aggregate quickly across a class.