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 ruled that Florida cities and towns cannot regulate shopping carts by requiring retailers to submit retention plans, allowing the city to approve or deny those plans, fining businesses for non-compliance, or requiring physical retention systems on store property. Section 506.5131, Florida Statutes, expressly preempts all of those municipal regulatory tools.

The opinion came after the Town of Davie considered an ordinance requiring retail establishments to file shopping cart retention systems and plans. The AG concluded the entire regulatory approach is preempted, and explicitly disapproved an earlier AG opinion that had said retention-plan ordinances might be permissible if they don't impose direct fees.

The new analysis: requiring a plan is itself a "cost" on the cart owner — the cost of designing the plan — which the statute prohibits.

There is one narrow grandfather: ordinances enacted between January 31, 2002 and June 30, 2002 that require retention systems are exempted. Anything enacted before or after that four-month window is preempted.

What this means for you

If you're a municipal attorney or city/town council member

Drafting a shopping-cart ordinance now means staying entirely outside what § 506.5131 governs. Off the table:

• Requiring shopping cart retention plans
• Approving or denying retention plans
• Imposing fines or penalties for failing to submit/follow a plan
• Requiring physical retention systems on store property (locking wheels, geofencing, fencing, etc.) — unless the ordinance was already on the books between Jan 31 – Jun 30, 2002

Still potentially available (not addressed in this opinion but consistent with the statute's structure):

• Charging fees/fines/costs only when shopping carts are found on public property, removed by the cart owner or their employee, and the fee has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
• Generally applicable nuisance or abandoned-property ordinances that do not target shopping cart owners specifically

If your municipality has an existing retention-plan ordinance, this opinion is a strong signal it may be unenforceable. Consult counsel before enforcing.

If you operate a retail business or grocery store in Florida

If a Florida city tries to make you submit a shopping cart retention plan, install a wheel-locking system, or fines you for cart-related issues without DACS approval and the cart being on public property, this opinion gives you a basis to challenge that demand. Retail establishments are not legally required to file retention plans with their city, and the city cannot deny one or fine you for not filing.

If you previously relied on the older AG opinion

The Florida Attorney General has now disclaimed that earlier opinion, holding it failed to recognize that requiring a plan is itself imposing a "cost" on cart owners. Cities relying on the older guidance to enforce plan requirements should re-examine their ordinances.

Common questions

Q: Can a Florida city ever regulate abandoned shopping carts?
A: Yes — but only narrowly. Under § 506.5131(2), a municipality may impose a fee, fine, or cost on a shopping cart owner only if (1) the cart is found on public property, (2) it was removed from a retail establishment by the owner or an employee acting on the owner's behalf, and (3) the fee/fine has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Q: My town's ordinance was passed in March 2002. Is it still valid?
A: Possibly — if it was enacted after January 31, 2002 and before June 30, 2002 and specifically requires businesses to install a retention system to retain carts within property boundaries, it falls within the statute's grandfather window. Ordinances outside that window are preempted.

Q: What about ordinances that require a retention plan but don't charge a fee?
A: Still preempted. The AG concluded that the cost of designing a plan, and any costs of redesigning and resubmitting a denied plan, are themselves "costs" on the cart owner that § 506.5131(2) prohibits.

Q: Can the city require all businesses (not specifically cart owners) to address theft of property?
A: General-application property and nuisance laws are different from targeted shopping cart regulation. This opinion addresses cart-specific ordinances. A municipality should consult counsel on whether an ordinance is general enough to escape § 506.5131's scope.

Q: This opinion overrules a previous AG opinion — is that allowed?
A: Yes. AG opinions are not binding on the AG's office; later opinions can correct or supersede earlier ones. This opinion explicitly disagrees with prior guidance that said plan-only ordinances might be allowed, and it controls going forward.

Background and statutory framework

In Florida, municipalities have broad home rule authority to enact ordinances — but home rule yields to state preemption. 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, with two exceptions:

Exception 1 — Carts on public property: A fee/fine/cost may be imposed if the cart was found on public property, removed from the retail establishment's premises by the cart owner or their employee, and the fee has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

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

The AG's analysis closes a previously-presumed loophole: even if an ordinance does not impose explicit fees, requiring a retention plan imposes the cost of preparing the plan, and allowing the municipality to deny a plan imposes the cost of redesigning and resubmitting. Both are "costs" within the statute's preemption.

Citations and references

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

Original opinion text

The full opinion as issued by Attorney General James Uthmeier:

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. 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." "But municipal ordinances must yield to state statutes." "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." "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.'"

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." 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."

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." 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.

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." 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. 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." 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.

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.

Sincerely,

James Uthmeier
Attorney General