On a related note, I've been doing some background research on this supposed law, and fail to find anything that implies that dealers can not cut the prices. In fact, I found something quite to the contrary.
The statute that governs these types of plans in Florida is 634.121, which can be found here:
Most of it is actually fairly benign and, if anything, benefits the consumer. It mentions the transfer requirement amongst other things like cancellation periods, etc. The last line is the most interesting. And I quote:
(11) By July 1, 2011, each service agreement sold in this state must be accompanied by a written disclosure to the consumer that the rate charged for the service agreement is not subject to regulation by the office. A service agreement company may comply with this requirement by including such disclosure in its service agreement form or in a separate written notice provided to the consumer at the time of sale.
For the record, my contract states this in it.
What I find most interesting about this is how they very clearly and forcefully say that the rates for these plans are NOT subject to regulation. In fact, they want to make it clear that this is the case to the consumer. This means that all the "we can't lower our rates because the state regulates them" is BS. It doesn't say out of state dealers can't sell the policies or mentioned a single thing about keeping the pricing uniform at full retail. Again, it says they do NOT regulate them at all.
So here's what I am thinking. This price lock policy was not the state's cause -- instead it was FCA's business decision. Think about it. They don't just pull prices out of thin air. They do very careful studies to determine how they can still make a profit. Average life of a car, average failure rate, average cost of failures, etc. But all that math assumes one big thing -- that the owner is the same. They figure most people sell a car after X years, and price accordingly with the principle that the plan will be null and void after that. Then here comes Florida requiring transferability. There goes all the numbers. Now the length of covered ownership might have just doubled. They don't necessarily want to charge more for Florida residents, if they even can, since that might look bad. But they know that the vast majority is markup that is often lowered. So what do they do? They say no more markdowns in Florida because of 'state policies and regulations'. And this is where we stand today.
While IANAL, I've dealt with contracts and things like this all the time and while there may be another statute I'm not finding that contradicts my assumption above, it seems to me that the claim that the cost is regulated is clearly false.