10.  On or about November 17, 2016, Plaintiff Kara Teggerdine visited a Speedway  gasoline station with the intent to purchase gasoline based on the posted and advertised price of  gasoline on outdoor signs located at the premises.   11.  The gas pumps at this station are equipped with self-service, point-of-sale, card  reading systems so that patrons may use a debit/check card or credit card at the pump without  entering the store.   12.  Plaintiff Teggerdine purchased and pumped what the display screen indicated to  be $5.01 worth of gas using her check card.     14.  Later that same day, Plaintiff Teggerdine went to make another purchase and her  card was declined for insufficient funds.  Upon checking on the account transactions, she learned  that there had been a charge to her bank card that wiped out the $59.70 in her bank account,  leaving her with a zero balance.     15.  Suspecting that her bank card had been breached or hacked, Plaintiff Teggerdine  went to her bank for assistance.  The bank representative reviewed the transactions on Plaintiff’s  account and determined that the charge had been made by Speedway.     16.  Plaintiff Teggerdine then called the Speedway store where she had purchased her  gas to ask if Speedway had made the charge as a hold or if other customers had reported having  fraudulent charges made to their cards used to purchase gas.  The Speedway manager responded  that the charge was not part of any Speedway policy and denied that the charge was made by  Speedway.  The manager gave Plaintiff a toll-free number to call the corporate office of  Speedway for further assistance.   17.  Plainitff Teggerdine called the corporate office of Speedway and learned that  Speedway had implemented a new policy effective, Wednesday, November 16, to place holds of  $125 on the bank accounts of customers making gas purchases.  The Speedway representative  told Plaintiff that the hold on the account would be released within 2 hours, but this did not occur.  The  charge on Plaintiff’s bank account was not reversed for approximately 48 hours.   18.  The $125 charge made by Speedway completely wiped out all the money in  Plaintiff’s bank account.  Because Plaintiff did not have access to the money she had in her bank  account, she did not have enough money on hand to make her rent payment.    20.  With the implementation of the Real Time Clearing program, Speedway changed  its authorization hold policy and increased authorization holds for debit/check card transactions  from $1.00 to $125.00.   21.  Speedway made this change in its policy without disclosure or notification to its  customers, and seemingly without notice to even many of its own personnel.    22.  Real Time Clearing is a program which is intended to allow debit/check card  transactions to be processed immediately, thereby reducing any authorization hold times that the  merchants place on customers’ financial accounts for pre-authorization.2   25.  Plaintiff seeks relief in her individual capacity and as representative of all others  who are similarly situated. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4),  Plaintiffs seek certification of a Nationwide class defined as follows:   All persons residing in the United States who made a gasoline purchase with a  debit/check card at a Speedway station from November 16, 2016 through and  including November 17, 2016, and had a $125 authorization hold placed on their  personal financial account (the “Nationwide Class”).   26.  Excluded from each of the above Classes are Speedway, including any entity in  which Speedway has a controlling interest, is a parent or subsidiary, or which is controlled by  Speedway, as well as the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,  successors, and assigns of Speedway. Further excluded are the judges and court personnel in this  case and any members of their immediate families.   27.  Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The members of the Class are so  numerous that the joinder of all members is impractical. While the exact number of Class  members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, it is estimated that Speedway serves  approximately 3.7 million customers per day.4   29.  Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the  Class because, inter alia, all members of the Class were injured through the common misconduct  described above and were subject to Defendants’ unfair and unlawful conduct.  Plaintiff is  advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of herself and all members of the Class.   31.  Superiority of Class Action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior  to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because  joinder of all the members of the Class is impracticable. Furthermore, the adjudication of this  controversy through a class action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent and potentially  conflicting adjudication of the asserted claims.    32.  Damages for any individual class member are likely insufficient to justify the cost  of individual litigation, so that in the absence of class treatment, Speedway violations of law  inflicting substantial damages in the aggregate would go un-remedied.   33.  The conduct of Speedway as to all members of the Class has been identical.  34.  Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth herein.   35.  The law imposes an affirmative duty on Speedway to sell gasoline at the  advertised price.   36.  Speedway had a duty to disclose to its customers, including Plaintiff and the Class,  any policies that would cause an amount different from the purchase price of a transaction to be  withdrawn from their financial accounts.     37.  By accepting debit/check cards, Speedway had a duty to Plaintiffs and the Class,  as paying customers, to use reasonable care to ensure that only the advertised and agreed upon  purchase price of a transaction would be withdrawn from their financial accounts.     38.  Speedway failed to use reasonable care in communicating the change in policy  regarding the authorization hold.   40.  Speedway breached its duties to Plaintiff and the Class by charging the $125  authorization hold to customer accounts or, alternatively, by not reversing the authorization hold  within a timely manner.   41.  Speedway failed to use reasonable care to ensure that only the purchase price of a  transaction was withdrawn from the financial accounts of Plaintiff and the Class.   42.  Speedway knew, or reasonably should have known, that breaching these duties  would harm Plaintiff and Class members.  It was reasonably foreseeable to Speedway that  charging customers an additional $125 for purchases and not reversing the hold for an extended  period of time would deprive customers of access to the monies in their financial accounts  causing hardship and injury.   43.  Speedway should have anticipated potential problems, been adequately prepared  to resolve them quickly, and properly advised Plaintiff and the Class of the possibility of a  prolonged authorization hold of $125 on their financial accounts.     44.  Further, through its failure to provide timely and clear notification of the change  in policy to consumers, Speedway prevented Plaintiff and Class Members from taking  meaningful, proactive steps to ensure that they did not lose access to the monies in their  financial accounts.    46.  Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth herein.   47.  Speedway solicited and invited Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase gasoline  using their debit/check cards at the self-service gasoline pumps. Plaintiff and Class members  accepted Speedway’s offers and used their debit/check cards to make gasoline purchases at  Speedway.   48.  With each purchase, Plaintiff and Class members entered into an implied contract  with Speedway to purchase gasoline based on the advertised price per gallon.   49.  It was not bargained for and Speedway did not inform Plaintiff and Class  members that they had an additional obligation or would incur an additional expense of $125 in  relation to the transaction.   50.  With each use of the debit/check card by Plaintiff and the Class, Speedway,  without customers’ knowledge or permission, sought a form of added protection in regards to the  pending transaction by requiring through its point-of-sale machine an additional $125  authorization charge.   51.  Speedway breached the implied contract with Plaintiff and the Class by secretly  requiring the excessive authorization charge in the amount of $125 which prevented Plaintiff and  the Class from use of said funds for an extended period of time.   53.  As a direct and proximate result of Speedway’s breaches of its implied contracts  with Plaintiff and Class members, Plaintiff and Class members sustained actual losses and  damages as described in detail above.  54.  Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth herein.     55.  Plaintiff and the proposed Class have conferred a monetary benefit upon  Speedway by entering a contract with Speedway for the purchase of gasoline at a specified and  advertised price.     56.  By the unfair, misleading and inequitable conduct alleged herein, Speedway has  unjustly received and retained benefits at the expense of Plaintiff and the proposed Class,  particularly the additional $125 charged for each point-of-sale transaction.   57.  Speedway wrongfully charged an additional $125 to Plaintiff and Class members  and deprived them of the use of $125 of their personal funds by causing an authorization hold to  be placed on their financial accounts.    58.  During the time Plaintiff and the proposed Class did not have access to the funds  held by Speedway, Speedway accrued interest on the monies collected from Plaintiff and Class  members through the authorization hold.   59.  Under principles of equity and fairness, Speedway should not be permitted to  retain money belonging to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class that Speedway unjustly received as  result of their unfair, misleading and inequitable conduct alleged herein without providing  compensation to Plaintiff and the proposed Class.   60.  Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered pecuniary harm as a direct and  proximate result of the Speedway’s inequitable conduct.   62. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth herein.    63.  The purpose of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat.  § 501.201, et seq., (“FDUTPA”) is to “protect the consuming public…from those who engage in  unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive or unfair acts or practice in the  conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2).    64.  Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by Florida Statute § 501.203(7), and the  subject transaction is “trade or commerce” as defined by Florida Statute § 501.203(8).     65.  FDUPTA was enacted to protect the consuming public and legitimate business  enterprises from those who engage in unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the  conduct of any trade or commerce, and in unfair methods of competition.     66.  For the reasons discussed herein, Speedway violated FDUPTA by engaging in the  unconscionable, deceptive, unfair acts or practices described herein and proscribed by Florida  Statute § 501.201, et seq.  Speedway’s unconscionable, deceptive, and unfair acts and practices  described herein were likely to, and did in fact, deceive members of the public, including  consumers (like Plaintiff) acting reasonably under the circumstances and to their detriment.      Negligence   (Asserted on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Unjust Enrichment  (Asserted on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act  Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.   (Asserted on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  