Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 560.204 (2025)
License required.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
560.204 License required.—
(1) Unless exempted, a person may not engage in, or in any manner advertise that they engage in, the activity of a payment instrument seller or money transmitter, for compensation, without first obtaining a license under this part. For purposes of this subsection, the term “compensation” includes profit or loss on the exchange of currency, monetary value, or virtual currency.
(2) A licensee under this part may also engage in the activities authorized under part III of this chapter without the imposition of any additional licensing fees.
History.—s. 2, ch. 94-238; s. 2, ch. 94-354; s. 6, ch. 2001-119; s. 30, ch. 2008-177; s. 5, ch. 2022-113.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: Cross v. Point & Pay, LLC, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
Cross v. Point & Pay, LLC, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2017). “Fla. Stat. § 560.204 (1). The parties agree that there is no private right of action for violations of this statute.”
Steven J. Pincus v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., 986 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2021). “Count III: Violation of Fla. Stat. § 560.204 In Count III, Pincus alleged that ATS was unjustly enriched by his fee because, in collecting it, ATS violated § 560.”
Pincus v. Speedpay, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “0117 (count three); unjust enrichment for a violation of Florida Statute § 560.204 (count four); money had and received for a violation of Florida Statute § 560.”
Hucke v. Kubra Data Transfer Ltd., 160 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “0117 (the “Surcharge Statute”), and Counts TV through VI are premised on Defendant’s alleged violations of Fla. Stat. § 560.204 (the “Money Transmitter Statute”).”
Steven J. Pincus v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., 25 F.4th 1339 (11th Cir. 2022). “Was ATS a “money transmitter” that was required to be licensed under Fla. Stat. § 560.204 (1)? (2) If there was a violation of a Florida statute, can that viola- tion support a claim for unjust enrichment? In particular: a.”
Caryn Pincus v. SpeedPay, Inc. (11th Cir. 2018). “Pincus sued Speedpay for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging that Speedpay violated Florida’s money transmitter licensing law, § 560.204, Fla. Stat., by charging and collecting service fees…”
Steven J. Pincus, etc. v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., etc. (Fla. 2022). “§ 560.204 (1)? (2) If there was a violation of a Florida statute, can that violation support a claim for unjust enrichment? In particular: a.”
Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Glassco Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2021). “) (concluding that violations under Section 560.204, Florida Statutes, cannot form for the predicate for a FDUTPA claim because the plaintiff failed to establish that the statute expressly proscribes deceptive and unfair practices); Hucke v.”
Arencibia v. AGA Serv. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2021). “2015) (dismissing unjust enrichment claim where plaintiff alleged no injury apart from violations of § 560.204, as “this would essentially allow an end-run around the Legislature’s decision not to provide a statutory cause of action.”
— 560.204(1) — 1 case
Pincus v. Speedpay, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “0117 (count three); unjust enrichment for a violation of Florida Statute § 560.204 (count four); money had and received for a violation of Florida Statute § 560.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.