In a potential class-action lawsuit, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a motorist鈥檚 challenge to a credit-card fee that he was charged after getting caught on camera running a red light.
Justices unanimously ruled against Steven Pincus, who filed the lawsuit in 2018 after he got hit with a $158 fine for a red-light violation in North Miami Beach. Pincus contended that American Traffic Solutions, Inc., which had a contract to run the city鈥檚 red-light camera program, improperly tacked on a $7.90 fee when he paid by credit card.
A federal district judge in South Florida ruled against Pincus, who then took the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Atlanta-based appellate court last year asked the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether American Traffic Solutions violated state law in charging the fee 鈥� a move known as certifying a question to the state court.
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Pincus鈥� argument that the company had been 鈥渦njustly enriched鈥� with the fee.
In an eight-page opinion, Justice Jorge Labarga wrote that American Traffic Solutions gave 鈥渧alue鈥� in exchange for the fee. As examples, he wrote that Pincus did not have to buy postage and use a check or money order to pay the traffic fine; could pay the balance over time; and avoided the risk of the payment being delayed, stolen or lost.
鈥淎ccordingly, Pincus鈥檚 unjust enrichment claim fails because he has not alleged a benefit conferred and accepted which would be unjust for ATS (American Traffic Solutions) to retain,鈥� the opinion said.
The Supreme Court decision sends the case back to the federal appeals court.
Red-light cameras in Florida have long been controversial and have spurred a variety of legal challenges.
During arguments in October at the Supreme Court, Bret Lusskin, an attorney for Pincus, contended that the additional fee was not allowed by state laws aimed at having uniform traffic rules. Also, he said American Traffic Solutions, a major player in the red-light camera industry, can鈥檛 require motorists to pay additional fees and that it is an 鈥渋llusion that this is voluntary.鈥�
鈥淭here is $7.90 that is in ATS鈥� hands that should be in Mr. Pincus鈥� hands,鈥� Lusskin said. 鈥淚t was unlawful for them to impose any additional fee, fine, surcharge or costs, and it鈥檚 illegal to collect a commission.鈥�
But Joseph Lang, an attorney for American Traffic Solutions, pointed to Pincus鈥� decision to pay by credit card instead of using another method.
鈥淲hile he was compelled to pay the violation, he was certainly not compelled in any way to choose to pay with a credit card,鈥� Lang said during the October arguments. 鈥淗e could have paid with a money order or a check and not incurred the fee.鈥�
