A Florida court has ruled in favor of Blue Seven, LLC, doing business as Indigo Float, allowing the company to challenge the Florida Department of Health's recent denial of its operating permit. The decision affects the float tank therapy industry and could set a precedent for how similar businesses are regulated in Florida.
The case, Blue Seven, LLC d/b/a Indigo Float v. Florida Department of Health, was filed on May 27, 2026, under docket number 1D2023-0714. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures in administrative decisions, particularly regarding the use of unadopted rules.
Background
Indigo Float is owned by Matthew and Jacqueline Stewart. They sought to open a float tank therapy business where customers can experience flotation therapy, a wellness treatment that involves floating in a tank filled with a heated, salty solution. The Stewarts applied for a permit from the Florida Department of Health, which oversees public swimming pools and special purpose pools.
The Department of Health initially denied Indigo Float's permit application, despite a recommendation from an administrative law judge (ALJ) to approve it. The Department argued that the float tanks fell under the category of public swimming pools and cited various statutory provisions to support its denial. The Stewarts contested this decision, leading to a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).
During the hearing, the ALJ found that the Department had improperly relied on an unadopted rule, known as the 2020 Float Tank Code, when denying the permit. This code had not gone through the proper rulemaking process, which requires public notice and input. The ALJ recommended that the Department rescind its denial of the permit application, stating that the Department's classification of float tanks was incorrect.
The Ruling
The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled that the Department of Health's denial of the permit application was not justified. The court stated, "The Department improperly rejected the ALJ’s factual finding that the Department relied on an unadopted rule in denying Appellant’s permit application." The judges on the panel included Judges Nordby, Lewis, and M.K. Thomas.
The court emphasized that the Department had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims that the float tanks were indeed public swimming pools. The ruling set aside the Department's final order and remanded the case for further proceedings, essentially giving Indigo Float another chance to obtain the necessary permit.
Impact
This ruling could have significant implications for the float therapy industry in Florida and beyond. It highlights the importance of regulatory agencies adhering to proper procedures when making decisions that affect businesses. The court's emphasis on the use of unadopted rules may encourage other businesses facing similar regulatory challenges to contest decisions made by state agencies.
The ruling also underscores the need for clarity in the classification of wellness businesses like float therapy. As more people seek alternative health treatments, the regulations governing these services will need to evolve to reflect their unique nature. The outcome of this case may influence future regulatory frameworks for similar businesses across the state.
What's Next
The case has been remanded back to the Florida Department of Health for further proceedings. It is unclear whether the Department will appeal the ruling or if there are any related cases pending. However, the Department will need to reassess its decision regarding Indigo Float's permit application, taking into account the court's findings.