Exclusive: Plaintiff has filed 160 lawsuits alleging website chats violated Florida wiretapping law
WPBF 25 News
Terri Parker
Investigative Reporter
June 26, 2026
Fla. — A lawsuit against a Riviera Beach business over two questions asked through an artificial intelligence chatbot led to a much larger discovery.
WPBF 25 News Investigative reporter Terri Parker reviewed court records showing that since July 2025, attorneys representing Broward County plaintiff Yesenia Muniz have filed 160 lawsuits against businesses, alleging their website chatbots violated Florida's Security of Communications Act by recording customer conversations without first obtaining consent.
One of those businesses was Riviera Beach-based Boarderie, a company that ships charcuterie boards nationwide.
Owner Aaron Menitoff said he was stunned when his company was sued after Muniz allegedly used the company's AI chatbot to ask two questions about shipping.
"I was kind of blindsided," Menitoff told Parker. "I had heard these types of things happen, but when it happens to you, it makes your blood boil."
According to the lawsuit, Boarderie's AI chatbot illegally "intercepted" Muniz's online chat and stored it on a computer server without her consent, allegedly violating Florida's wiretapping law.
The lawsuit sought statutory damages of at least $2,500, plus attorney fees and court costs.
"Pot of gold for Professional Plaintiffs"
Menitoff's attorney, former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, argues the lawsuits attempt to apply a decades-old law to modern technology.
"It's not spying. It's not interception," Aronberg said. "When you have two parties to the conversation and one of them is the business itself, you can't spy on yourself."
Aronberg also questioned the volume of litigation.
"I don't think it's a good legal argument," he said. "Because there are statutory damages here and lawyer fees involved, it's a pot of gold for professional plaintiffs." Read more
Dear Ms. Parker,
Thank you for your excellent reporting June 26, 2026 on the misuse of Florida's Security of Communications Act by the legal profession, including attorney Veronika Balbuzanova, attorney Abdul-Sumi Dalal, and the Johnson Dalal law firm. I am Neil J. Gillespie, a candidate for U.S. Senate.
I was unable to locate the complaint in Muniz v. Cheeseboarder LLC, but I found a similar lawsuit filed by attorney Abdul-Sumi Dalal and the Johnson Dalal law firm, Yesenia Muniz v. Big Sandy Furniture, Inc. The complaint is attached. Please see paragraphs 16 and 17:
Section 934 is the two-party consent rule in Florida. However federal law permits one-party consent, see 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d), "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
You quoted attorney Dave Aronberg in your story: "What will happen is this will continue until enough people get hurt by this," Aronberg said. "Then the Legislature is going to act, and it's going to kill the golden goose."
Actually the U.S. Congress (U.S. Senate and U.S. House) already acted, many years ago, see 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d). Under the Supremacy Clause, Section 934 is unconstitutional. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the U.S. constitution, federal laws, and treaties override any state laws that conflict with them.[1] It promulgates that all state laws, state courts, and state constitutions are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and federal laws and treaties made by the U.S. government.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Federal law permits one-party consent to record calls [18 USC § 2511(2)(d)]. Last time I checked one party consent was the law in 38 states. Twelve states, including Florida, require two party consent. On its face, two party consent is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
I believe Mr. Aronberg knows this because he is named in my court pleadings, see Wings4Sarah and Death of Sarah Thompson, age 35, May 12, 2021, City of Ocala, Marion County, Florida, and DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT CASE 2020-CF-2417
It appears Mr. Aronberg may not have advised his client, Aaron Menitoff, about this issue.
Also, if the parties sued by attorney Veronika Balbuzanova, attorney Abdul-Sumi Dalal, and the Johnson Dalal law firm, actually violated section 934.03, why were they not arrested? I was arrested twice under section 934.03. Mr. Aronberg, as a former State Attorney, knows people have been arrested under section 934.03.
This is one reason I am running for U.S. Senate. Section 934 is unconstitutional, but is being used by the Florida legal profession to extort money from people like Aaron Mentitoff, and his company Cheeseboarder LLC. Section 934 is also being used as lawfare to arrest people like me.
I profiled your report on my Telephone Recording page.
https://www.nosue.org/telephone-recording/
I plan a filing in federal court by the end of the week. Thanks again for your reporting.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie (signature block edited)
Neil J. Gillespie for US Senate
https://neilgillespie4senate.blogspot.com/
No Party Affiliation (NPA)
Florida Candidate ID: 89955
FEC Committee ID: C00943399
FEC Candidate ID: S6FL00863
No comments:
Post a Comment