Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1408 (2026)

Damages; injunctive relief

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The state, a political subdivision or any public agency threatened with injury or injured in its business or property by a violation of this article may bring an action for appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief, damages sustained and, as determined by the court, taxable costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

B. A person threatened with injury or injured in his business or property by a violation of this article may bring an action for appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief, damages sustained and, as determined by the court, taxable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. If the trier of fact finds that the violation is flagrant, it shall increase recovery to an amount not in excess of three times the damages sustained.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 33× “§§ 44-1401 to -1416 (2003). The respective trial courts granted Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, precluding Plaintiffs from pursuing a civil antitrust claim under A.”

Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC, 47 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 23× “¶ 30 Admittedly, § 44-1412 could be viewed as encouraging Arizona courts to interpret § 44-1408 in line with federal authorities.”

W. Waste Serv. Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 584 P.2d 554 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 8× “LaPrade, Judge of the Superior Court, declaring the triple damage provision of the Arizona Uniform Antitrust Act, A.R.S. § 44-1408(B), unconstitutional. We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Rules of Procedure for Special Action, 17A A.”

D.R. Ward Constr. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 470 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1408(B). 10 . The analyses in these cases hinge on the absence of any impoverishment, as compared to the lack of a direct enrichment.”

In re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “2d 572 (2002); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1408 (B). There are also differences among the states’ laws concerning Defendants’ affirmative defenses.”

California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989). “The Arizona statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1408 (A) (1987), generally follows the language of the Clayton Act, but it might be interpreted as a matter of state law as authorizing indirect purchasers to recover.”

In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1408(B) ("A person threatened with injury or injured in his business or property by a violation of this article may bring an action for appropriate injunc-tive or other equitable relief .”

Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., 985 P.2d 535 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “section 44-1408 (1994). ¶ 19 The case was tried to a jury in May 1995 3 .”

California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Indeed, even applying both courts’ reasoning, damages suits cannot be authorized, since Arizona’s provision governing damages — Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1408 — lacks similar language that allows for suits by the Attorney General in the “name of the state.”

In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2018). “(Opp'n 36 (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1408 (B) ).) The Act elsewhere defines person as "an individual, corporation, business trust, partnership, association or any other legal entity.”

California v. Arc Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989). “The Arizona statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1408 (A) (1987), generally follows the language of the Clayton Act, but it might be interpreted as a matter of state law as authorizing indirect purchasers to recover.”

Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 17× “§§ 44-1401 to -1416 (2003). The respective trial courts granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, precluding Plaintiffs from pursuing a civil antitrust claim under A.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1408(B) — 8 cases

Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC, 47 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “¶ 30 Admittedly, § 44-1412 could be viewed as encouraging Arizona courts to interpret § 44-1408 in line with federal authorities.”

Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). “§§ 44-1401 to -1416 (2003). The respective trial courts granted Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, precluding Plaintiffs from pursuing a civil antitrust claim under A.”

W. Waste Serv. Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 584 P.2d 554 (Ariz. 1978). “LaPrade, Judge of the Superior Court, declaring the triple damage provision of the Arizona Uniform Antitrust Act, A.R.S. § 44-1408(B), unconstitutional. We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Rules of Procedure for Special Action, 17A A.”

D.R. Ward Constr. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 470 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1408(B). 10 . The analyses in these cases hinge on the absence of any impoverishment, as compared to the lack of a direct enrichment.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1408(b) — 1 case

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.