EFTA Document EFTA01358953

Page 20 889 F.3d 116, *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 11909, ** plaintiff freely entered into the membership agreement. The plaintiffs further claim that the refund mitigation technique caused Trilegiant to retain an unfair benefit by offering only partial refunds. But as with their failed CUTPA claim, they cannot argue that Trilegiant was unjustly enriched by not refunding additional, legitimate past membership fees to which its customers were not entitled. See, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot USA, In