Florida’s rules come from chapter 466 and Board of Dentistry rules. Check the legislation tracker for pending changes.
1. CPOD status
Tier: Strict. The doctrine lives in a dedicated ownership statute, not the practice definition. Fla. Stat. § 466.0285(1)(a): no person other than a Florida-licensed dentist, and no entity other than a professional corporation or limited liability company composed of dentists, may employ a dentist or dental hygienist in the operation of a dental office. The statute’s stated purpose is “to prevent a nondentist from influencing or otherwise interfering with the exercise of a dentist’s independent professional judgment.” The § 466.003(3) definition of “dentistry” is clinical and contains no proprietor clause. Section 466.0285(2) enumerates what a nondentist may not do: exercise control over dental equipment or materials while used in providing dental services (a lease must expressly leave the dentist “complete care, custody, and control of the equipment or practice”); direct, control, or interfere with clinical judgment (with carve-outs for payer coverage determinations, contractually excluded services, and alternative-benefit applications); or control treatment selection, patient records, decisions on pricing, credit, refunds, warranties, and advertising, and decisions on office personnel and hours. Penalties: violation is a third-degree felony (§ 466.0285(3), citing §§ 775.082–.084), and any contract made in violation is void as contrary to public policy for contracts entered or renewed after October 1, 1997 (§ 466.0285(4)).2. Other professions
This page covers dentistry only. Medicine, optometry, veterinary practice, and other professions are governed by different statutes and boards, even within the same state. For medical-practice sources, use the MSO-PC Wiki. Florida’s approach to the corporate practice of medicine is more permissive. The dental restriction is stated expressly in statute.3. Professional entity forms
Permitted forms: a professional corporation (“P.A.”) or PLLC composed of dentists, per § 466.0285(1)(a), organized under Fla. Stat. ch. 621, the Professional Service Corporation and Limited Liability Company Act (§ 621.02). Hygienists: a hygienist is a nondentist under the statute, so a hygienist-owned practice cannot employ dentists. A hygiene-only delivery model raises separate scope questions that should be verified with counsel. Physicians: an MD is a nondentist under ch. 466; the same prohibition applies. Also confirm before filing:- Naming rules, designator requirements, and any limits tied to licensed owners’ names; several states regulate dental trade names separately
- Board pre-approval or certificates, whether the dental board must act before (or after) the secretary of state will file
- Officer and director licensure, including states that restrict these roles as well as ownership to licensees
4. Fee structure
No Florida statute bans a percentage management fee by name, but § 466.0285(2) reserves pricing, credit, and refund decisions to the dentist. Equipment arrangements must also leave the dentist in complete care, custody, and control. A fee that gives the DSO effective control over the economics of clinical decisions carries significant risk because an offending contract is void and the conduct is a felony. Rule 64B5-17.013’s list of permitted services includes accounting, bookkeeping, A/R monitoring, billing, and collection. Price those services defensibly and verify the arrangement with counsel. For the MSA, test whether a percentage-of-collections fee is permitted under the state’s dental, fee-splitting, referral, tax, and contract rules. Several states expressly restrict revenue-linked dental management fees, and the Aspen Dental settlements imposed related party-specific terms. Flat and cost-plus formulas are not automatic safe harbors; the services, calculation, amount, control rights, and actual payments still matter. See Fee-splitting rules and Set the management fee.5. Noncompetes
No dental-specific noncompete statute was identified for this page. Verify current Florida law with counsel before including one. Federal noncompete policy changed substantially in 2025 and 2026. The FTC’s Non-Compete Rule was vacated, the agency dismissed its appeals in September 2025, and the rule was removed from 16 C.F.R. pt. 910 effective February 12, 2026. State law remains central. Dental enforcement resolutions in New York and California have also restricted noncompetes for the settling parties as a corporate-practice remedy. Verify the current rule, worker, agreement type, transaction context, effective date, and remedy in this state. See the legislation tracker.6. DSO-specific law and registration
Florida has no DSO registration filing, but two authorities address DSO arrangements. Section 466.0285 contains the nondentist prohibition described above. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B5-17.013 (“Proprietorship by Nondentists”), adopted October 16, 1996 and amended March 27, 2002, restates that prohibition and expressly permits contracts for listed “practice management services.” The list covers office space, furnishings, and equipment suitability; staffing; regulatory-compliance services; productivity methods; inventory and supplies; financial and operational information systems; marketing and advertising plans; site selection and office design; and financial services such as accounting, bookkeeping, A/R monitoring, payment administration, billing, collection, and tax payment. Use the list when drafting the Florida service schedule. See Register a DSO for states with filing regimes.7. Death and transition
No wind-down or estate exception was identified in § 466.0285 or elsewhere in ch. 466 during this research. Verify succession structures with counsel; no statutory grace period was located for this page.8. Practical structuring notes
- An over-controlling management services agreement (MSA) may be void and may create criminal exposure, in addition to discipline risk. Draft each service line against Rule 64B5-17.013’s enumerated list.
- Equipment and premises terms should leave “complete care, custody, and control” with the dentist. Usage-linked leases may support an inference of control.
- The absence of a statutory death-transition window makes buy-sell and succession planning more urgent here than in states with codified grace periods.
- No 2023–2026 Florida DSO-registration or dental-management legislation was identified in this research; verify the current session with counsel.
9. The standing checklist
- Confirmed the permitted entity form for dentistry in this state
- Confirmed whether dental board pre-approval or a certificate is required before filing
- Confirmed whether officers and directors must be licensed dentists
- Confirmed the management fee structure is lawful here, including any restriction on revenue-linked fees
- Clinical carve-out drafted against this state’s current statutory language, including any enumerated control prohibitions
- Transfer restriction and succession documents checked against this state’s death-transition window
- Noncompete provisions checked against current state law
- DSO foreign-qualified before it has employees here
- Any DSO registration, licensure, or disclosure obligation identified and calendared
- Trade-name and advertising-disclosure rules for dental practices checked
10. Sources and where to verify
For the cases and statutes referenced above, see DSO & dental case law and the 51-jurisdiction table. For enacted and pending legislation, see the dental legislation tracker.