{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:85f6be", "proof": "sha256:0afeded38f2ee11cb0df2a863f03e122865b3aae4a22c7f65e58609e4eabee1f", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Illinois Official Reports", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Appellate Court", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Arcangel v. Yardi Systems, Inc., 2026 IL App (1st) 242062", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Appellate Court", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Caption", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "CARL ARCANGEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Defendant-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "District & No. First District, Sixth Division", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "No. 1-24-2062", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Filed May 22, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Decision Under", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Review", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23-CH-9957; the", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Hon. Cecilia Horan, Judge, presiding.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Judgment Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Counsel on", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Martin W. Jaszczuk, Margaret M. Schuchardt, and Akshay Soman, of", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Jaszczuk P.C., and Matthew Peterson, of Consumer Law Advocate,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "PLLC, both of Chicago, for appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Justin M. Penn, of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, of Chicago, and Ryan", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "D. Watstein, Benjamin D. Williams, and James M. Ruley, of Watstein", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Terepka LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, for appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Panel JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court, with", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Justices Hyman and Gamrath concurred in the judgment and opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "¶ 1 Carl Arcangel, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brought an action", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "against Yardi Systems, Inc. (Yardi), alleging that Yardi violated section 2 of the Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/2 (West", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "2024)) by charging a 3.5% service fee to tenants who made rent payments through Yardi’s", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "online payment platform using a credit card. Plaintiff brought a corresponding unjust", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "enrichment count for amounts collected and wrongfully retained by defendant from the credit", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "card transaction fees. The trial court dismissed, finding that plaintiff could not allege unfair or", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "deceptive conduct where plaintiff chose to pay by credit card when the 3.5% service fee had", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "been disclosed prior to the transaction and where plaintiff had a fee-free alternative.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "¶ 2 We affirm. We first hold that a consumer fraud claim cannot be solely premised upon an", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "alleged violation of a contract between third parties. We further find that plaintiff has failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "sufficiently allege unfair or deceptive conduct to state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "¶ 3 Our ruling today is shaped by the form of the pleadings that came before us on review.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Plaintiff brought his claim against the fee processor, but not the landlord, and framed his claim", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "around the Visa rules, a third-party contract. Our ruling today stands for the proposition that", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claims may not be brought to enforce the provisions of a third-party", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "contract. We do not foreclose the possibility that a Consumer Fraud Act claim could be brought", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "against a payment processor, or a landlord, under similar circumstances. Rather, we hold that", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "such a claim would need to allege consumer unfairness or deception outside of the bounds of", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "a third-party contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "¶ 5 Defendant operates an online payment platform (Rentcafe) through which tenants may pay", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "their rent. Tenants may pay (a) via debit or credit card, incurring a 3.5% fee to do so; (b) via", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "automated clearing house (ACH), incurring a flat $10 convenience fee; or (c) by enrolling in", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "auto-pay using their bank account information, an option that incurs no additional fee. Each", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "option and its corresponding fees are disclosed to tenants before they make payments through", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "defendant’s platform.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "¶ 6 On or around July 3, 2023, plaintiff made a rent payment through defendant’s platform", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "using a Visa credit card. By paying by credit card, plaintiff incurred a 3.5% surcharge on his", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "rent payment.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "¶ 7 Plaintiff’s Consumer Fraud Act claim is premised on Yardi’s alleged violation of Visa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "core rules and Visa product and service rules (Visa Rules). Plaintiff alleges that Yardi and Visa", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "entered into a merchant agreement that required Yardi’s compliance with the Visa Rules in", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "order for Yardi to accept payments using Visa credit cards. The Visa Rules authorize merchants", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "to assess a surcharge on Visa credit card transactions up to a maximum of 3%. Thus, plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "maintains that Yardi’s assessment of a 3.5% fee on credit transactions violated the Visa Rules.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "¶ 8 Plaintiff maintains that Yardi’s violation of the 3% cap on surcharges was both deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "and unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Fraud Act. First, plaintiff alleges that Yardi", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "acted deceptively where it implicitly represented that it is authorized to charge the 3.5%", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "surcharge despite the 3% cap in the Visa Rules. Although Yardi disclosed that payment by", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "card would involve a 3.5% surcharge, it made no reference to the Visa Rules or their 3% cap", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "on surcharges. Second, plaintiff summarily alleges that the surcharges were unfair and", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "oppressive because consumers were substantially injured when they were charged amounts", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "beyond what the Visa Rules authorized. In the briefs, plaintiff argues that the surcharge is", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "unfair and oppressive because cash-poor consumers may lack the ability to opt into the fee-", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "free autopay option and thus may be forced to pay an “unauthorized” 3.5% surcharge.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "¶ 9 In March 2024, defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2024)), arguing that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "claim under the Consumer Fraud Act as a matter of law and consequently that plaintiff’s unjust", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "enrichment claim failed. In brief, defendant argued that (1) the 3.5% surcharge was disclosed", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "and the nondisclosure of the Visa Rules does not constitute “deceptive conduct,” (2) the", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "surcharge was not “unfair” where the payment platform disclosed an alternative, fee-free", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "option by which plaintiff could have paid his rent, and (3) plaintiff may not bring a Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "Fraud Act claim based solely upon Yardi’s alleged breach of contract with a third party (Visa).", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "¶ 10 The trial court dismissed the consumer fraud claim with prejudice, finding, as a matter of", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "law, that plaintiff could not allege that defendant acted unfairly or deceptively where the fee", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "was disclosed in advance of the transaction and where plaintiff could have avoided paying the", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "fee by opting to pay using a fee-free option. For the same reasons, the court found that plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "could not maintain an unjust enrichment claim. The trial court further noted that the alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "violation of the Visa Rules was “immaterial” to its decision to dismiss.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "¶ 11 This appeal followed.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "¶ 13 On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that his Consumer Fraud Act", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "and unjust enrichment claims failed as a matter of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "¶ 14 A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "legal sufficiency of the pleadings. Omega Demolition Corp. v. Illinois State Toll Highway", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "Authority, 2022 IL App (1st) 210158, ¶ 36. A section 2-615 motion asks whether, assuming all", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "well-pleaded facts in the complaint are true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s favor, the complaint states a legally recognized cause of action. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "¶ 15 “[R]eview of a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "is de novo.” Hulsh v. Hulsh, 2025 IL 130931, ¶ 13. “We may affirm on any basis appearing in", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "the record, whether or not the trial court relied on that basis and whether or not the trial court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "reasoning was correct.” Jackson v. Hehner, 2021 IL App (1st) 192411, ¶ 27.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "¶ 16 The Consumer Fraud Act “protect[s] consumers, borrowers, and business persons against", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "fraud, unfair methods of competition, and other unfair and deceptive business practices.”", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "McIntosh v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 2019 IL 123626, ¶ 20. The Consumer Fraud Act", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "declares unlawful", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "“[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "omission of such material fact *** in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 815 ILCS", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "505/2 (West 2024).", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "¶ 17 “Under the Consumer Fraud Act, the plaintiff must allege (i) the defendant engaged in a", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "deceptive act or practice, (ii) intending that the plaintiff rely on the deception or practice,", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "(iii) which occurs in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, (iv) causing actual", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "damage to the plaintiff, (v) proximately caused by the deception.” Ash v. PSP Distribution,", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "LLC, 2023 IL App (1st) 220151, ¶ 23. Unlike common-law fraud, plaintiffs need not show", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "actual reliance under the Consumer Fraud Act. Id. ¶ 27.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "¶ 18 In determining whether a practice is unfair, courts consider factors including “(1) whether", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "the practice offends public policy; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers.” Robinson v. Toyota", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403, 417-18 (2002). Not all three criteria need to be satisfied", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "for a court to find that a practice is unfair; instead, a court may consider the extent to which", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "one or more factors is met. Id. at 418-19.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "¶ 19 A Consumer Fraud Act claim must be pled with the same particularity and specificity as", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "that required under common-law fraud. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill. 2d 482, 501", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "(1996).", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "¶ 20 A. Plaintiff Cannot Premise Consumer Fraud Claim on an", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Alleged Breach of a Third-Party Contract", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "¶ 21 Plaintiff’s consumer fraud claim fails because it relies solely on the alleged violation of a", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "third-party contract. Both wrongs asserted under the Consumer Fraud Act—deceptive conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "and unfairness—boil down to a breach of contract: Yardi’s alleged violation of the Visa Rules.", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "The arguments that Yardi’s conduct was deceptive or unfair rely on the assumption that the", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "breach itself was injurious to the consumer. However, plaintiff offers little to no explanation", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "as to how Yardi’s imposition of a 3.5% surcharge was unfair or deceptive outside of it not", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "being authorized under Yardi’s third-party contract with Visa.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "¶ 22 With respect to the deceptive conduct charge, plaintiff concedes that the surcharge was", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "disclosed prior to the transaction. Plaintiff therefore structures the deception claim around", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "defendant’s failure to disclose that the surcharges were unauthorized under the Visa Rules. In", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "other words, plaintiff asserts that defendant acted deceptively by not disclosing that the", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "surcharges issued would breach its agreement with Visa.", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "¶ 23 With respect to unfairness, plaintiff takes for granted that the breach of the Visa Rules is", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "unfair to consumers. Plaintiff does not hazard an argument that the fees were excessive on their", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "own or otherwise contrary to law; he only asserts that the fees exceeded the rate permitted", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "under the Visa Rules.1 As will be addressed below, plaintiff’s other unfairness argument, that", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "the surcharges were oppressive because certain consumers would not be able to opt for the fee-", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "free option, also derives from the premise that the fees were unauthorized or inherently unfair.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "¶ 24 Each arm of plaintiff’s consumer fraud claim is thus premised on a purported breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "contract. In essence, plaintiff has brought a breach of contract claim in the guise of a statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "1We do not presume the 3.5% fees are inherently unfair as transaction fees in the absence of any", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "argument to that effect and where plaintiff acknowledges that other credit card companies, such as", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Mastercard, allow up to a 4% surcharge.", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "¶ 25 While Illinois courts have not addressed whether breaches of third-party contracts are", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "actionable under the Consumer Fraud Act, it is well recognized that “[a] breach of contractual", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "promise, without more, is not actionable under the Consumer Fraud Act.” Avery v. State Farm", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 169 (2005); see American Airlines, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 233 (1995); Golembiewski v. Hallberg Insurance Agency, Inc., 262 Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "App. 3d 1082, 1093 (1994). “[T]he Consumer Fraud Act was not intended to apply to every", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "contract dispute or to supplement every breach of contract claim with a redundant remedy.”", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "Zankle v. Queen Anne Landscaping, 311 Ill. App. 3d 308, 312 (2000).", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "¶ 26 We do not believe that it makes any difference that this matter involves a third-party", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "contract instead of a direct contract between plaintiff and defendant. The principle that a breach", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "of contract, in itself, cannot sustain a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act applies", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "with equal force to third-party contracts. Certain federal courts have also reached this", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "conclusion. In Brockland v. Roundy’s Illinois, LLC, the Northern District of Illinois ruled that", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "a breach of the Visa Rules by defendant grocery stores did not, on its own, give rise to a", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim. No. 21-cv-5332, 2022 WL 17082542, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18,", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "2022) (“[P]laintiff does not adequately explain how the absence of a law precludes defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "from charging [cash-back] fees. Therefore, this is fundamentally a question about whether", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "defendant breached its contract with Visa *** which is not actionable under the [Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "Fraud Act].”).", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "¶ 27 Plaintiff submits that Brockland was wrongly decided and that the principle that a breach", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "of contract will not give rise to a Consumer Fraud Act claim does not apply where a plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "lacks contractual remedies. The principle tamps down on “redundant” statutory remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "where the litigant has relief governed by a contract or where the litigant could pursue a", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "common-law breach of contract claim. See, e.g., Avery, 216 Ill. 2d at 169 (“It is settled that the", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act was not intended to apply to every contract dispute or to supplement", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "every breach of contract claim ***.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Golembiewski, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 1093; Zankle, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 312. Because plaintiff lacks", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "a contractual remedy for defendant’s breach of the Visa Rules, plaintiff believes that he should", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "be permitted to bring his claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.2", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "¶ 28 We do not agree. Whereas it is true that the principle prevents a plaintiff from bringing a", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim where he has an action for breach of contract, we do not believe", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "that the Consumer Fraud Act provides a statutory cause of action for a contractual breach that", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "a litigant could not pursue in a common-law breach of contract action. Just because plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "cannot bring a breach of contract does not mean that he may seek to vindicate contractual rights", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "or obligations under the Consumer Fraud Act. Instead, plaintiff’s inability to pursue the claim", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "as a breach of contract calls into question plaintiff’s right to seek relief for those breaches at", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "all.", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "2We note that defendant asks us to consider a provision of the Visa Rules that disclaims the", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "conferral of rights, privileges, or claims under the rules to third parties. Defendant suggests that we may", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "consider this provision because plaintiff incorporated it by including, and relying upon, a hyperlink to", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "the rules in his complaint. The contract itself, however, is not appended to the complaint as an exhibit.", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "We decline to determine whether the hyperlink incorporated the contract as an exhibit that may be", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "considered on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss. We note, however, that both parties agree that plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "is not a party to the contract and cannot sue for breach of it.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "¶ 29 The pleadings place plaintiff in a bind. If plaintiff were able to pursue the claim as a breach", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "of contract, e.g., as an intended third-party beneficiary, then the Consumer Fraud Act claim", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "would fail because plaintiff could pursue contractual remedies. Plaintiff does not allege", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "consumers are intended third-party beneficiaries of any agreement between Yardi and Visa,", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "and plaintiff’s argument implicitly concedes that they are not. Indeed, plaintiff’s argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "he may bring a Consumer Fraud Act claim is premised on his inability to bring a breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "contract claim. On the other hand, if plaintiff lacks a contractual remedy—if he lacks", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "enforceable rights under the contract—then plaintiff fails to explain how he derives an", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "actionable injury based solely on the breach of that contract. Third-party, incidental", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "beneficiaries “have no contractual rights or standing to enforce a contract’s terms.”", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Harleysville Insurance Co. v. Mohr Architecture, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 192427, ¶ 31; see", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "Martis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 388 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1024 (2009) (finding", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of a contract, so he had “no right to enforce it”).", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "Plaintiff’s action assumes an interest in the 3% surcharge cap, though he admits that he is not", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "a party to the contract and has no way to enforce it directly.3", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "¶ 30 On a similar posture, the Northern District of California has dismissed an action for breach", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "of the Visa Rules brought under a consumer fraud statute, finding that merely identifying a", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "breach fails to establish wrongfulness or unfairness. The court stated:", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "“Although Williams alleges that Visa enforces the Visa Rules unevenly, the Rules were", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "not enacted for Williams’s benefit (or for the benefit of consumers generally), as the", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Court has already held. Moreover, Visa is not required to have any policy regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "debit card surcharges. When merchants follow the policy Visa does have, or when Visa", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "enforces it, Williams receives a benefit he otherwise would not. Thus, there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "consumer injury against which to balance Visa’s reasons, justifications or motives.”", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "(Emphasis in original.) Williams v. Visa, Inc., No. 24-cv-08708, 2025 WL 1518044, at", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "*8 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2025).", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "¶ 31 The California court applied this reasoning to the unjust enrichment claim as well. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "*5 (“Visa’s retention of a portion of the debit surcharge can be wrongful only if it had a duty", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "to Williams not to permit such charges.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "¶ 32 We find this reasoning persuasive. The Visa Rules govern the rights and obligations of", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "Visa and participating merchants. Although compliance with or enforcement of the rules may", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "incidentally benefit consumers, the rules do not define the bounds of consumer fairness.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Instead, the rules merely govern the relationship of Visa and third-party merchants that Visa", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "may, arguably, enforce or waive. See id. at *4 (Visa claims discretion not to enforce the terms", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "of the rules).", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "¶ 33 Lacking an actionable interest under a third-party contract, a consumer cannot assert that", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "failure of a contracting party to comply with the terms of that contract constitutes unfairness", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "to the consumer. The third-party contract simply does not define the bounds of fairness. We", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "wonder, for example, why a 3.5% surcharge would be any more fair to plaintiff if the Visa", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "Rules actually permitted a 3.5% surcharge? And is a 3.5% surcharge any more unfair to Visa", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "credit card users than Mastercard users simply because Visa’s rules set forth a 3% cap whereas", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "3To the extent that plaintiff would seek to enforce the Visa Rules, we note that consumers may", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "submit complaints to Visa for the violations of the rules and that Visa may seek to rectify those", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "violations directly.", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "- 7 -", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "Mastercard allows a 4% surcharge? The terms of these contracts do not, on their own, define", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "what is fair to consumers.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "¶ 34 Plaintiff contends that a breach of Visa’s rules alone can serve as the basis for a Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Fraud Act claim, citing In re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation, 830 F. Supp. 2d 518 (N.D.", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Ill. 2011). In Michaels, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant stores failed to comply with Visa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "global mandate, which required the use of tamper-resistant personal identification number", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "(PIN) pads among other security measures. Id. at 522. The court permitted the Consumer Fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "Act claim to proceed, finding that defendant’s failure to comply with the security requirements", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "and the industry’s best practices unfairly exposed plaintiffs to the theft of their credit card", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "information. Id. at 526. The court further noted that defendant failed to promptly notify", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "customers. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "¶ 35 Setting aside that Michaels is a federal case and therefore not binding on this court,", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s reliance on Michaels is misplaced. The unfairness to the consumers in Michaels was", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "not merely the breach of Visa’s rules. Instead, the unfairness—the substantial injury—was the", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "result of the failure of the stores to adequately secure the consumers’ credit card information.", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "The stores’ failure to comply with Visa’s global mandate, to comply with payment card", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "industry PIN security requirements, or otherwise to follow the industry’s best practices only", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "served to underline how the stores failed to adequately protect consumers. We disagree with", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s suggestion that Michaels stands for the proposition that a breach of the Visa Rules,", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "on its own, constitutes an unfair practice.", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "¶ 36 We believe that it is not enough to identify a breach of a contract or a third-party contract", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "to state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act. A plaintiff must, at the very least, allege how", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "the conduct constituting the breach is unfair with respect to the consumer. See Demitro v.", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "General Motors Acceptance Corp., 388 Ill. App. 3d 15, 21 (2009) (action was “not a simple", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "breach of contract” where plaintiff alleged oppressive conduct that “sufficiently implicated", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "consumer protection concerns”); People ex rel. Hartigan v. Knecht Services, Inc., 216 Ill. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "3d 843, 855-56 (1991); see also Zankle, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 313 (“[A] naked breach-of-contract", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "claim does not support a Consumer Fraud Act claim.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "¶ 37 Plaintiff fails to plead anything more than a breach of contract by Yardi. Each of plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "deception and unfairness arguments relies on the assumed premise that the breach of the Visa", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "Rules is itself injurious to consumers, but plaintiff never justifies this premise. Instead, plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "glosses over the issue, asserting variously that the fees are “unauthorized,” “impermissible,”", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "“unlawful,” or in “violat[ion]” of the Visa Rules. Merely identifying a breach of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "between Yardi and Visa fails to crystallize how said breach is “unfair” to an affected third-", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "party consumer. If plaintiff lacks the right to enforce the contract directly, we fail to see how", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "he can assert the breach as the injury for a Consumer Fraud Act claim. The fact that consumers", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "having to pay 3.5% rather than 3% surcharges on credit transactions may violate a third-party", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "contract does not, on its own, establish unfairness. We therefore find that plaintiff has failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "¶ 38 We further agree with the trial court that the substance of plaintiff’s allegations fails to", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "support a claim of deceptive or unfair conduct.", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "¶ 39 B. Plaintiff Has Not Pled a Deceptive Act", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "¶ 40 For conduct to be considered deceptive, “it must, at the very least, create the likelihood of", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "confusion or misunderstanding.” Aliano v. Ferriss, 2013 IL App (1st) 120242, ¶ 26.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "- 8 -", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "¶ 41 “An omission or concealment of a material fact in the conduct of trade or commerce", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "constitutes consumer fraud.” Pappas v. Pella Corp., 363 Ill. App. 3d 795, 799 (2006).", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "However, “an omission is not actionable as fraud if it gives rise to ‘an incomplete’ as opposed", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "to an affirmatively ‘false impression.’ ” Ash, 2023 IL App (1st) 220151, ¶ 33 (quoting Phillips", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "v. DePaul University, 2014 IL App (1st) 122817, ¶ 40).", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "¶ 42 At the outset, there is no dispute that the 3.5% surcharge was disclosed prior to plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "paying his rent by credit card. There is no allegation that the amount of the surcharge or its", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "purpose was misrepresented to plaintiff. Instead, plaintiff’s argument is that the disclosure was", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "deceptive because it either misrepresented or omitted the fact that the Visa Rules only", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "authorized a 3% surcharge. Plaintiff claims that he relied on the implied representation that the", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "3.5% surcharge was authorized and that he would not have paid the surcharge had he been", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "aware that it was not permitted under the Visa Rules.", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "¶ 43 But this simply restates the breach of contract claim: the alleged deception is that defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "did not disclose that the 3.5% surcharge would constitute a breach of the Visa Rules. Illinois", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "courts reject attempts to plead breaches of contract as deceptive acts under the Consumer Fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "Act: “We believe that a ‘deceptive act or practice’ involves more than the mere fact that a", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "defendant promised something and then failed to do it. That type of ‘misrepresentation’ occurs", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "every time a defendant breaches a contract.” Zankle, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 312. “Were our courts", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "to accept plaintiff’s assertion that promises that go unfulfilled are actionable under the", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act, consumer plaintiffs could convert any suit for breach of contract into a", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "consumer fraud action.” Id. Plaintiff’s deception charge attempts to bootstrap a contract claim", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "under the Consumer Fraud Act, which would be improper for the reasons already stated.", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "¶ 44 The deception argument is also deficient because the failure to disclose that the 3.5%", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "surcharge exceeded the 3% surcharge permitted by the Visa Rules was not deceptive. Yardi’s", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "disclosure of the 3.5% surcharge is not deceptive because it does not make any affirmative or", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "implicit representation relating to its contract obligations with respect to the Visa Rules. The", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "disclosure simply informs the consumer of the payment options available and the consequences", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "of electing to pay rent by credit card. We do not find there to be an element of deception", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "contained in the nondisclosure of the 3% cap contained in the Visa Rules.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "¶ 45 We distinguish this disclosure from plaintiff’s case, Bernhauser v. Glen Ellyn Dodge, 288", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "Ill. App. 3d 984, 986 (1997), where the Second District found a car dealership’s", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "communication designating disclosed fees as “Amounts Paid to Others for You” misleading", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "where the dealership actually pocketed the money paid. In Bernhauser, the language of the", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "communication clearly implied that amounts paid toward these fees were for pass-through", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "costs. Id. The communication deceptively prevented the consumers from understanding what", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "they were actually paying for and why. In the instant case, however, there is no implied or", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "actual representation that the surcharges complied with an unrelated contract between Yardi", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "and Visa.", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "¶ 46 Nor is there any express requirement under the Consumer Fraud Act that merchants must", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "disclose to consumers the terms of their contracts with credit card companies or, for that matter,", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "their contracts with any third parties. To the extent that the legislature believes that the terms", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "of credit card merchant agreements implicate consumer fairness issues or that their disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "is necessary to protect consumers, it would be the legislature’s prerogative to clarify that. As", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "written, however, the Consumer Fraud Act creates no duty for merchants to disclose the terms", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "of contracts they have with third parties, and we decline to read such a duty into the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "- 9 -", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "¶ 47 We further agree with defendant’s gloss that finding an implied, actionable representation", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "in Yardi’s disclosure would have far-reaching unanticipated consequences. In principle,", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s theory would give consumers actionable rights under contracts they are not party to", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "even where a disclosure to that consumer does not make any representation as to the third-", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "party contract. In such cases, the charge of deception is too attenuated to be meaningful to a", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "consumer, especially since the consumer lacks any enforceable right under the third-party", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "¶ 48 Lastly, we note that Yardi represents the surcharge as a “convenience fee.” The parties do", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "not elaborate on the substance of this representation—whether the fee implies a pass-through", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "transactional cost passed onto the consumer or whether the fee is the price the processor or", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "landlord places on extending the privilege of an alternative payment option. Plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "equivocates, referring in the complaint to language in Yardi’s representation that suggests the", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "surcharges are pass-through fees, while also alleging that the surcharges are a “profit center”", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "for Yardi. Ultimately, we do not find that the representation of a convenience fee to be", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "affirmatively deceptive in this case. Plaintiff has not alleged that Yardi misrepresented what", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "the convenience fee was for; plaintiff only alleges that Yardi misrepresented that the fee was", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "authorized. We further note that the “convenience fees” label, as well as Yardi’s disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "that the fee covers “banks fees, Yardi fees, and processing network fees,” flexibly entails that", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "Yardi receives amounts exceeding the strict transaction costs of processing the tenant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "payment.", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "¶ 49 While there is nothing illegal about a payment processor or a landlord pricing in a profit", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "for themselves into a convenience fee attached to a payment method—a “convenience fee”", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "describes the price set on the “convenience” of a privilege extended to a consumer—we", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "question the propriety of merchants or businesses skimming profit off the top of junk fees that", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "represent the cost of neither the transaction nor the underlying good or service. Whereas these", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "fees may not be legally deceptive, we are receptive to the plaintiff’s argument that such fees", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "may, in some circumstances, be exploitative. Clearer and more precise disclosures about how", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "such fees are allocated—to what and to whom—would promote some much-needed consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "transparency and better protect consumers.", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "¶ 50 C. Plaintiff’s Allegations Do Not Support Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "Unfairness or Oppressive Conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "¶ 51 As has been established, plaintiff cannot sustain a consumer fraud claim based solely on a", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "breach of contract. Plaintiff has not explained how the breach itself is unfair to consumers, nor", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "has plaintiff explained how the imposition of a 3.5% surcharge on Visa credit transactions is", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "unfair. Each of plaintiff’s other glosses on unfairness inevitably falls back on the presumption", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "that the breach or 3.5% surcharge is unfair. We consider plaintiff’s remaining argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "Yardi’s surcharges are oppressive.", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "¶ 52 “[C]harging an unconscionably high price generally is insufficient to establish a claim for", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "unfairness under the Consumer Fraud Act. [Citation.] Rather, the defendant’s conduct must", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "violate public policy, be so oppressive as to leave the consumer with little alternative but to", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "submit, and injure the consumer.” Saunders v. Michigan Avenue National Bank, 278 Ill. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "3d 307, 313-14 (1996) (“While Saunders has alleged an unconscionably high fee, this", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "allegation alone is not enough to establish unfairness. Specifically, we find a total absence of", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "the type of oppressiveness and lack of meaningful choice necessary to establish unfairness.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "- 10 -", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "¶ 53 Plaintiff asserts that the 3.5% surcharge for credit card payments is unfair, despite the fee-", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "free autopay alternative, because some tenants lack sufficient funds to pay their rent in cash.", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "Plaintiff suggests that defendant gives these illiquid tenants little choice but to submit to the", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "“impermissible” 3.5% surcharge. Plaintiff therefore maintains that the practice is unfair", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "because it exploits tenants who are unable to pay their rent in full.", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "¶ 54 While we appreciate the unfortunate reality that some market practices will inevitably", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "affect poorer consumers more harshly, plaintiff’s argument does not save his Consumer Fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "Act claim for several reasons. First, and most critically, this argument still relies on the", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "unsupported assumption that the 3.5% surcharges, the alleged breach, are inherently unfair to", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "the consumer. Limiting a consumer to a single option is not oppressive unless the sole option", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "is unfair. For example, one would not say that a landlord’s decision to only accept rent", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "payments in cash is “oppressive” without more. The major premise of plaintiff’s argument is", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "that consumers are forced into an unfair option. Without an explanation as to how the 3.5%", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "surcharges are unfair on their own, plaintiff has failed to explain how a limitation of consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "options in practice constitutes unfairness.", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "¶ 55 Second, we do not find that Yardi’s options were oppressive. A fee is not oppressive where", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "a consumer has a meaningful alternative. See id. at 314. Yardi offers tenants a fee-free autopay", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "option through which they may make the payments using a bank account. Consumers may", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "avoid the surcharges imposed for payment via credit card by opting for the free alternative.", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "Yardi has offered meaningful alternatives even if certain consumers are not equipped to take", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "advantage of those alternatives. As plaintiff concedes, landlords are not required to accept rent", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "payments by credit card. It is absurd, then, to suggest that Yardi acts oppressively where it", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "gives tenants the additional option of paying by credit because some tenants lack the funds to", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "pay their rent in full. Appreciating that tenants may suffer any number of financial difficulties,", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "we do not believe their lack of choice is the consequence of Yardi depriving them of", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "meaningful alternatives.", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "¶ 56 Ultimately, we agree with the lower court. The surcharges were not unfair or oppressive", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "where Yardi offered consumers meaningful, free alternative payment options.", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "¶ 57 D. Plaintiff’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Cannot Stand Alone", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "¶ 58 Unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action that, standing alone, will justify an", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "action for recovery. Mulligan v. QVC, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 620, 631 (2008). Instead, unjust", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "enrichment is “ ‘a condition that may be brought about by unlawful or improper conduct as", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "defined by law, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence.’ ” Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "(1st) 120645, ¶ 25 (quoting Alliance Acceptance Co. v. Yale Insurance Agency, Inc., 271 Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "App. 3d 483, 492 (1995)).", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "¶ 59 “When an underlying claim of fraud, duress or undue influence is deficient, a claim for", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment should also be dismissed.” Martis, 388 Ill. App. 3d at 1025 (affirming", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "dismissal of unjust enrichment claim where underlying Consumer Fraud Act claim was", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "properly dismissed); see Ash, 2023 IL App (1st) 220151, ¶ 43.", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "¶ 60 Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim is predicated on the same underlying conduct as the", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim. Because the Consumer Fraud Act claim cannot stand, plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment claim was also properly dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "- 11 -", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "¶ 61 III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "¶ 62 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "Fraud Act and unjust enrichment claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "¶ 63 Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_429" } ], "word_count": 5565, "cites": [ "513 U.S. 219" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "e90f35708d175430bfb8d8c1f2754d82c55812827290120f6d3fc73fab258b78", "source_url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/b8ac4220-7ed6-4f0a-a556-1e4a3069c4c3/file", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T06:40:06.796+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "e90f35708d175430bfb8d8c1f2754d82c55812827290120f6d3fc73fab258b78", "recomputed_sha256": "e90f35708d175430bfb8d8c1f2754d82c55812827290120f6d3fc73fab258b78", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-09T09:19:10.443Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:0afeded38f2ee11cb0df2a863f03e122865b3aae4a22c7f65e58609e4eabee1f", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "expires": "2026-10-10T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T09:16:32", "content_hash": "sha256:0afeded38f2ee11cb0df2a863f03e122865b3aae4a22c7f65e58609e4eabee1f", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-09T10:19:10.942Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-24-2062-2026-05-22" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }