appellant’s view that the factual determinations should be separately evaluated. For example, the trial court noted that “menu boards informed customers that the ‘environmental compliance fee [was] added for the handling of hazardous products used,’ and thus, informed customers that the fee was not a tax.” While this finding illustrates how customers were informed that the fee was not a tax, it also illustrates how the fee was misrepresented to customers as an added charge specifically for the handling of hazardous products used. This finding is the essence of the second claim by appellant — that it was misrepresented as costs of handling, but in fact was an additional price that was kept as additional profits. See Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 758 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). The trial court also found that additional
holding that statutory damages were appropriate for each discrete violation of that states deceptive trade practices act holding consumer claims under the texas deceptive trade practices act nonassignable holding that billings by the cruise line for port charges that were misrepresented as passthrough expenses but kept as additional profits is a deceptive practice under the florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation  holding that the delayed discovery doctrine is not applicable to actions for tortious interference with business relationships defamation or unfair and deceptive trade practices