FDUTPA claims accrue when a plaintiff purchases an allegedly defective product, not when they discover the alleged defect. Matthews v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 12-60630, 2012 WL 2520675, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2012); Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., No. 09-61166, 2011 WL 1833366, at *6 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2011) ("Plaintiffs' FDUTPA claim accrued when they purchased the [product], not when they discovered that the [product] was unusable.").

However, under “FDUTPA, Plaintiffs suffered damages when they purchased something that was not what they were led to believe they were purchasing.” Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., No. 09–61166–CIV, 2011 WL 1833366, at *6 (S.D.Fla. May 13, 2011).

It is well-settled there is no "delayed discovery rule" applicable to FDUTPA claims. Marlborough Holdings Group, Ltd. v. Azimut-Benetti, 505 Fed. Appx. 899, 906 (11th Cir. 2013); Matthews, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90802 at *9-11; Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51457, at *18 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2011). Because Plaintiff leased the subject vehicle in March 2007, the four-year limitations period ran on her FDUTPA claim in 2011, several years before she commenced this action.

Moreover, the Court finds it difficult to square Matthews' argument with Florida law, which provides that, "[u]nder FDUTPA, Plaintiffs suffered damages when they purchased something that was not what they were led to believe they were purchasing. Therefore, Plaintiffs' FDUTPA claim accrued when they purchased the [product], not when they discovered that the [product] was unusable." Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., 2011 WL 1833366, at *6 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2011) (citations omitted); see also S. Motor Co. of Dade Cnty. v. Doktorcyzk, 957 So. 2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (stating that the FDUTPA "cause of action accrued on the date of sale," not when payments were subsequently made); H & J Paving of Fla., Inc. v. Nextel, Inc., 849 So. 2d 1099, 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) ("[T]he correct measure of damages [under FDUTPA] . . . would be the value of the products at thetime of sale based upon a useful life of approximately eight years and the value of the product which would become obsolete within a few years") (emphasis added). Thus, Florida law suggests that Matthews sustained damage the moment that she purchased the vehicle with the alleged defect, even though the alleged defect did not manifest for several years.

When the claim arises out of a disputed purchase, the cause of action accrues on the date of the purchase. See Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo America, Co., Ltd., No. 09-61166, 2011 WL 1833366, at *6 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2011). Defendants allege that they purchased the last Smoothie King franchise on July 28, 2006, which reveals that, at the latest, they would have been required to file any claim on or before July 28, 2010, over a year prior to the date that the instant lawsuit was filed.10

Defendants argue that Florida courts narrowly construe the doctrine of equitable estoppel and do not recognize fraudulent concealment as a means to avoid application of the statute of limitations. In support, defendants rely primarily on the federal district court decision in Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., 2011 WL 1833366 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2011), a case involving a FDUTPA claim for unfair trade practices in connection with "allegedly defective fiber used to make ballistic fabric." Id. at *1.