Can a Florida town pass an ordinance requiring stores to submit a shopping cart retention plan or install a cart-retention system?

Plain-English summary

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier concluded that § 506.5131, Florida Statutes, expressly preempts a wide range of municipal shopping-cart ordinances. The opinion responded to the Town of Davie, which was considering an ordinance to require retail establishments to maintain shopping-cart retention plans and systems.

The AG read § 506.5131(2) as preempting ordinances that require a business to submit a shopping cart retention plan, allow the municipality to deny such a plan, or impose a monetary penalty for failing to submit and adhere to a plan. It also preempts ordinances requiring a retention system to keep carts within the establishment's real property boundaries if enacted before January 31, 2002 or after June 30, 2002.

Two exceptions remain. A fee, fine, or cost may be assessed against a shopping cart owner if the cart was "found on public property," was "removed from the premises or parking area of a retail establishment by the owner of the shopping cart, or an employee acting on the owner's behalf," and the fee has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. And the preemption does not reach a narrow grandfather of retention-system ordinances enacted between January 31, 2002 and June 30, 2002.

The opinion also expressly disagrees with a prior AG opinion that had read § 506.5131(2) as permitting a plan-only ordinance with no fees. The AG concluded that requiring a plan is itself a "cost" on the cart owner (the cost of designing the plan, and of redesigning and resubmitting if the municipality denies it), so a plan-only ordinance is also preempted.

What this means for you

Florida municipalities considering shopping-cart ordinances

The opinion identifies four categories of cart-specific regulation that § 506.5131(2) preempts: requiring a retention plan, allowing the municipality to deny a plan, imposing a monetary penalty for failing to submit or adhere to a plan, and requiring installation of a retention system to keep carts within real property boundaries (outside the January 31 – June 30, 2002 grandfather). The AG read each as imposing a "fee, fine, or cost" on the cart owner within the statute's preemption clause.

Florida retailers and grocery operators

The opinion reads § 506.5131(2) as the controlling preemption against cart-specific municipal ordinances. Under the AG's analysis, a fee, fine, or cost is permissible against a cart owner only when the three statutory conditions are all met: the cart was found on public property, was removed from the retailer's premises or parking area by the owner or an employee, and the fee has Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services approval.

Municipalities with pre-2002 or post-2002 retention-system ordinances on the books

The opinion treats § 506.5131(2)'s grandfather as narrow: only retention-system ordinances "adopted after January 31, 2002, and prior to June 30, 2002" survive preemption. The AG reads the statute as preempting retention-system ordinances outside those dates.

Municipalities that previously relied on the prior AG opinion

The opinion expressly states that the prior AG opinion "failed to recognize that an ordinance requiring shopping cart owners to submit a retention plan is assessing a 'cost' on owners," and disagrees with that earlier reading. The earlier opinion's plan-without-fees framing is no longer the AG's position.

Common questions

Q: When can a Florida municipality charge a fee or fine against a shopping cart owner?
A: Under the AG's reading of § 506.5131(2), only when all three conditions are met: the cart was found on public property, it was removed from the retail establishment's premises or parking area by the owner or an employee, and the fee, fine, or cost has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Q: My town's retention-system ordinance was enacted in March 2002. Is it preempted?
A: The AG reads § 506.5131(2)'s grandfather as covering ordinances "adopted after January 31, 2002, and prior to June 30, 2002, that require[] a business establishment to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property boundaries of a business location." A March 2002 retention-system ordinance falls within that window. Retention-system ordinances outside the window are preempted under the AG's reading.

Q: What about a plan-only ordinance that does not charge a fee?
A: The AG concluded that requiring a plan imposes "a 'cost' on owners, namely the cost associated with designing such a plan," and that allowing the municipality to deny a plan imposes the cost of "redesigning and resubmitting a retention plan." Both are within § 506.5131(2)'s preemption under the AG's analysis.

Q: Does this opinion overrule the earlier AG opinion?
A: The AG expressly disagrees with the earlier opinion's reading and explains why a required plan itself imposes a cost under § 506.5131(2).

Q: Does § 506.5131 preempt general nuisance or abandoned-property ordinances?
A: The opinion analyzes shopping-cart-specific ordinances and the preemption clause of § 506.5131(2). It does not separately analyze whether a generally applicable nuisance ordinance would fall within the preemption.

Background and statutory framework

Florida municipalities have broad home-rule authority, but "municipal ordinances must yield to state statutes," and express preemption forecloses local regulation of a preempted subject. Section 506.5131 governs the assessment of fees, fines, and costs against shopping cart owners. Subsection (2) expressly preempts any "fee, fine, or costs" assessed against a shopping cart owner, subject to two exceptions:

1. Carts on public property. A fee, fine, or cost may be imposed if the cart was found on public property, was removed from the retail establishment's premises or parking area by the owner or an employee, and the fee was approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

2. Narrow grandfather. The preemption does not apply to ordinances "adopted after January 31, 2002, and prior to June 30, 2002" that require a business to install a retention system to keep carts within the establishment's real property boundaries.

The AG's analysis extends the preemption beyond explicit monetary penalties: requiring a plan imposes design costs, and allowing denial imposes redesign and resubmission costs, both of which the AG reads as "costs" within § 506.5131(2). The opinion expressly disagrees with the prior AG opinion that had treated a plan-only ordinance as outside the preemption.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• § 506.5131, Fla. Stat. (Shopping carts; restrictions on assessment of fees, fines, and costs)

Cases:

• City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006)
• Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 2014)
• City of Kissimmee v. Fla. Retail Fed’n, Inc., 915 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)

Source

• Official print view: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/28131

Original opinion text

January 21, 2026

Allan T. Weinthal, Esq.
Town of Davie
8800 SW 36th Street
Davie, Florida 33328

Dear Mr. Weinthal:

I received your letter dated March 27, 2025 requesting a legal opinion on three questions of Florida law.[1] You ask substantially whether section 506.5131, Florida Statutes: (1) preempts a municipality from enacting an ordinance requiring a business owner to submit a shopping cart retention plan to the municipality; (2) allows a municipality to approve or deny such a plan; and (3) allows a municipality to impose a monetary penalty against a business for failing to submit and adhere to a shopping cart retention plan. Additionally, while not explicitly included in your questions, you appear to also ask whether section 506.5131 preempts municipal ordinances that require a business to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property boundaries of a business.

Section 506.5131 expressly preempts municipal ordinances that allow a municipality to: require a business owner to submit a shopping cart retention plan to the municipality; deny a shopping cart retention plan; impose a monetary penalty for failing to submit and adhere to a shopping cart retention plan; or require a business to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property of a business so long as the ordinance was enacted before January 31, 2002, or after June 30, 2002.

Analysis

We understand from your letter that the Town of Davie is considering passing an ordinance that would require retail establishments to have a shopping cart retention system and plan. “In Florida, a municipality is given broad authority to enact ordinances under its municipal home rule powers.”[2] “But municipal ordinances must yield to state statutes.”[3] “Preemption of local ordinances by state law may … be accomplished by express preemption—that is, by a statutory provision stating that a particular subject is preempted by state law or that local ordinances on a particular subject are precluded.”[4] “Preemption by state law, however, ‘need not be explicit so long as it is clear that the legislature has clearly preempted local regulation of the subject.’”[5]

Section 506.5131 governs the assessments of fees, fines, and costs against shopping cart owners. Section 506.5131(2) expressly preempts any “fee, fine, or costs” from being “assessed against the owner of a shopping cart.”[6] There are two exceptions to this express preemption.

First, a “fee, fine, or costs” may be “assessed against the owner of a shopping cart” if the shopping cart was: (1) “found on public property”; (2) “removed from the premises or parking area of a retail establishment by the owner of the shopping cart, or an employee acting on the owner’s behalf”; and (3) “the fee, fine, or cost has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.”[7]

Second, the statute’s preemption clause does not “apply to any ordinance adopted after January 31, 2002, and prior to June 30, 2002, that requires a business establishment to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property boundaries of a business location.”[8] Consequently, because this exception grandfathers in any ordinance adopted after January 31, 2002, and before June 30, 2002 that requires businesses to install shopping cart retention systems, section 506.5131(2) preempts any such ordinance enacted outside of this timeframe.[9]

This office previously stated that section 506.5131(2) does not per se preempt “an ordinance requiring a plan for the recovery of stolen or abandoned shopping carts that does not impose fees, fines, or costs on the owner of [shopping] carts.”[10] That opinion, however, failed to recognize that an ordinance requiring shopping cart owners to submit a retention plan is assessing a “cost” on owners—namely the cost associated with designing such a plan—and is therefore preempted.[11] Furthermore, section 506.5131(2), contemplates the imposition of a fine or cost on the owner of a shopping cart only when the cart is found on public property and only under the circumstances described in section 506.5131 and therefore preempts ordinances that “impose a fine or costs under any other circumstances.”[12] And because an ordinance that allows a municipality to deny a shopping cart retention plan would impose a “cost” on the owner of a shopping cart—namely the costs associated with redesigning and resubmitting a retention plan—section 506.5131(2) preempts any such ordinance.

Finally, section 506.5131(2) expressly preempts any ordinance “that requires a business establishment to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property boundaries of a business location” so long as the ordinance was enacted before January 31, 2002, or after June 30, 2002.[13]

Conclusion

Section 506.5131 expressly preempts municipal ordinances that: (1) require a business owner to submit a shopping cart retention plan to a municipality; (2) allow a municipality to deny a shopping cart retention plan; (3) impose a monetary penalty for failing to submit and adhere to a shopping cart retention plan; or (4) require a business to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property of a business, if the ordinance was enacted before January 31, 2002, or after June 30, 2002.[14]

Sincerely,

James Uthmeier
Attorney General

[1] See Letter from Allan T. Weinthal, Town of Davie Attorney, to James Uthmeier, Att’y Gen. of Fla., (March 27, 2025) (on file with the Office of the Attorney General).

[2] City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So. 2d 1238, 1243 (Fla. 2006) (citing Art. VIII, § 2(b), Fla. Const.).

[3] Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So. 3d 492, 496 (Fla. 2014).

[4] Id.

[5] Id. (quoting Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 252, 254 (Fla.1989)).

[6] § 506.5131(2), Fla. Stat. This office previously stated that “[n]o express language of preemption is evident in section 506.5131.” Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 07-29 (2007). That opinion, however, ignored the plain text of section 506.5131’s preemption clause which expressly preempts the assessment of fees, fines, and costs against shopping cart owners by stating that: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law or local ordinance, no fee, fine, or costs may be assessed against the owner of a shopping cart unless” certain conditions are met. See, e.g, Fla. Ass’n of Realtors v. Orange Cnty., 415 So. 3d 762, 765 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (holding that the statement “[n]o law, ordinance, rule, or other measure which would have the effect of imposing controls on rents shall be adopted or maintained” expressly preempted local government from imposing rent control ordinances).

[7] § 506.5131(2), Fla. Stat.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 07-29 (2007).

[11] See id. A “cost” is “the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object.” Cost, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cost (last visited Dec. 22, 2025).

[12] Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 07-29 (2007) (emphasis added).

[13] See § 506.5131(2), Fla. Stat. The Fifth District Court of Appeal in 2005 concluded that a municipal ordinance requiring businesses to implement a shopping cart retention program did not conflict with section 506.5131. City of Kissimmee v. Fla. Retail Fed’n, Inc., 915 So. 2d 205, 209-10 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). But that decision was issued before section 506.5131 was broadened in 2006 to preempt all fees, fines, or costs against a shopping cart owner and most ordinances that require businesses to implement a shopping cart retention program.

[14] Though not under direct consideration here, the logic and conclusions of this opinion apply with equal force to any local ordinance that requires businesses to submit shopping cart retention plans or install retention systems to retain shopping carts within those businesses’ real property boundaries. See, e.g., North Miami Beach, Fla., Code ch. IX § 9-39; Dania Beach, Fla., Code ch. 22 art. V § 22-96; Lake Worth Beach, Fla., Code ch. 19 art. I § 19-13; City of North Miami, Fla., Code ch. 11 art. VII §§ 11-141 et. seq.; City of Homestead, Fla., Code ch. 17 § 17-26; City of Gainesville, Fla., Code ch. 14.5 art. VIII §§ 14.5-173 et. seq.; Hallandale Beach, Fla., Code ch. 13 art III §§ 13-67 et. seq.; City of Hollywood, Fla., Code title XI ch. 129 §§ 129.01 et. seq.; City of New Port Richey, Fla., Code ch. 14 art. V. §§ 14-50 et. seq.; City of Miami, Fla., Code ch. 31 art. IV §§ 31-81 et. seq.; City of Tampa, Fla., Code ch. 6 art. III div. 10 §§ 6-244 et. seq.; City of North Lauderdale, Fla., Code ch. 26 art. IV §§ 26-70 et. seq.; City of Palmetto, Fla., Code ch. 19 art. I § 19-2; City of Port Orange, Fla., Code ch. 18 art. XIV §§ 18-310 et. seq.; City of Tarpon Springs, Fla., Code ch. 8 art. V §§ 8-96 et. seq.; City of Wilton Manors, Fla., Code ch. 17 art. IV § 17-12; Deerfield Beach, Fla., Code ch. 46 § 46-27; Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., Code ch. 8 art. III div. 1 §§ 8A-76, 8A-76.1; Hillsborough Cnty., Fla., Code ch. 10 art. IV §§ 10-101 et. seq.