Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.
On a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court held that a putative class plaintiff who paid a 5% credit-card convenience fee on a red-light camera penalty cannot state a claim for unjust enrichment against the fee collector, because he received adequate consideration (convenience, speed, payment confirmation, avoidance of mail risk) in exchange. Because the defendant gave value for the fee, its retention was not inequitable even assuming the fee violated Florida statutes, and the Court declined to answer the remaining certified questions regarding statutory violations and private rights of action.
Key facts
- Pincus paid a 5% credit-card convenience fee when paying a red-light camera penalty online rather than by mail.
- Pincus brought a putative class action against American Traffic Solutions, Inc., alleging unjust enrichment based on the convenience fee.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a significant defense-side tool in consumer class actions premised on statutory violations dressed up as unjust enrichment claims: a statutory violation alone does not make retention of a payment 'inequitable'… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.