Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1355 (2026)

Exemption; waiver of rights; action to recover damages; attorney fees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. An assistive device dealer is not liable to a manufacturer for a refund if the assistive device dealer makes a repair in a manner that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions.

B. This section does not limit any rights or remedies available to a consumer under any other law. Any waiver of rights by a consumer is void.

C. In addition to any other remedy, a consumer may bring an action in superior court to recover damages caused by a violation of this section. The court may award the prevailing consumer triple the amount of any pecuniary loss plus costs, disbursements and attorney fees. The court may also award any equitable relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case: Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 44-1355(C). ¶ 5 Section 44 — 1351(1) defines “assistive device” as follows: 1.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 18× “§ 44-1355(B). 4 II. Factual and Procedural History 5 The facts below are taken from the parties’ partial summary judgment briefing and 6 other documents in the record.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 12× “) Plaintiffs argue that AADWA “does not allow warrantors to 6 negate” a consumer’s demand “via bargaining,” because § 44-1352(D) provides that the 7 consumer “may direct the manufacturer to perform [a return or replacement] and the 8 manufacturer shall comply with the option…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 9× “) Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f the Ninth Circuit agrees with Plaintiffs, it changes 5 Plaintiffs’ recoverable damages and avoids a second trial on the issue of damages,” while 6 “[i]f the Ninth Circuit agrees with the Court, it resolves the issue of damages and increases 7 the…”
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 44-1355(C). ¶5 Section 44-1351(1) defines “assistive device” as follows: 1.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2020). “§ 44-1355(C). 21 II. Plaintiffs’ Factual Allegations 22 The underlying facts, as alleged in the operative complaint (Doc.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1355(B) — 2 cases
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). “§ 44-1355(B). 4 II. Factual and Procedural History 5 The facts below are taken from the parties’ partial summary judgment briefing and 6 other documents in the record.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). “) Plaintiffs argue that AADWA “does not allow warrantors to 6 negate” a consumer’s demand “via bargaining,” because § 44-1352(D) provides that the 7 consumer “may direct the manufacturer to perform [a return or replacement] and the 8 manufacturer shall comply with the option…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1355(C) — 6 cases
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 44-1355(C). ¶ 5 Section 44 — 1351(1) defines “assistive device” as follows: 1.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). “§ 44-1355(B). 4 II. Factual and Procedural History 5 The facts below are taken from the parties’ partial summary judgment briefing and 6 other documents in the record.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). “) Plaintiffs argue that AADWA “does not allow warrantors to 6 negate” a consumer’s demand “via bargaining,” because § 44-1352(D) provides that the 7 consumer “may direct the manufacturer to perform [a return or replacement] and the 8 manufacturer shall comply with the option…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021). “) Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f the Ninth Circuit agrees with Plaintiffs, it changes 5 Plaintiffs’ recoverable damages and avoids a second trial on the issue of damages,” while 6 “[i]f the Ninth Circuit agrees with the Court, it resolves the issue of damages and increases 7 the…”
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 44-1355(C). ¶5 Section 44-1351(1) defines “assistive device” as follows: 1.”
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.