McIntosh v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 2019 IL 123626

Background:

Chicago imposed a 5-cent bottled-water tax (exempting beverages defined as "soft drinks"), and the Dept. of Revenue published guidance listing exempt products (e.g., Gatorade, seltzer, mineral water).
McIntosh purchased carbonated/sparkling bottled water at Walgreens in 2015 and later learned (via news reports) Walgreens had been charging the bottled-water tax on such exempt items.
McIntosh filed a class action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleging Walgreens deceptively represented that prices included only lawfully required taxes.
Walgreens moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) invoking the voluntary payment doctrine, submitting an affidavit that receipts separately listed the bottled-water tax and Walgreens remitted collected tax to the City.
The circuit court granted dismissal; the appellate court reversed (holding the voluntary payment doctrine did not bar a Consumer Fraud Act claim based on deception); the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed dismissal.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the voluntary payment doctrine applies to Consumer Fraud Act claims	McIntosh: Consumer Fraud Act claims are categorically exempt from the doctrine; public‑policy purpose of the Act precludes the defense	Walgreens: The voluntary payment doctrine is a general common‑law rule and applies to statutory consumer‑fraud claims absent express legislative abrogation	Held: Doctrine applies to Consumer Fraud Act claims; the Act does not expressly abrogate the common‑law rule
Whether McIntosh pleaded facts bringing his claim within the fraud exception to the doctrine	McIntosh: Receipts and Walgreens’ conduct constituted a deceptive representation that the tax was lawful, so fraud exception applies	Walgreens: Receipts disclosed the tax and Walgreens remitted it; plaintiff pleaded only a mistake of law, not a material factual misrepresentation	Held: Complaint failed to plead fraud; disclosure on receipts was not a misrepresentation of material fact and a mistake of law cannot support fraud
Whether a receipt listing a tax can be treated as a representation of the tax’s legality	McIntosh: Listing the tax implied the tax was required and allowable by law	Walgreens: A receipt is prima facie evidence of payment and merely documents the charge; it does not misrepresent legal entitlement	Held: A receipt listing the tax does not constitute a representation of legal entitlement; plaintiffs are charged with knowledge of the law, so this is a mistake of law, not actionable fraud

Key Cases Cited

King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1 (2005) (discusses voluntary payment doctrine and exceptions)
Vine Street Clinic v. HealthLink, Inc., 222 Ill. 2d 276 (2006) (explains exceptions to voluntary payment doctrine)
Freund v. Avis Rent‑A‑Car System, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 73 (1986) (erroneous tax collection and voluntary payment rule)
Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (1994) (section 2‑619 affirmative matter framework)
De Bouse v. Bayer AG, 235 Ill. 2d 544 (2009) (elements required to plead a Consumer Fraud Act claim)
Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403 (2002) (purpose and liberal construction of the Consumer Fraud Act)
Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535 (1908) (early statement of the voluntary payment doctrine)
Getto v. City of Chicago, 86 Ill. 2d 39 (1981) (application of voluntary payment doctrine to tax collections)