Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Advertisement" includes the attempt by publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation, oral or written, to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any merchandise.

2. "Attorney general" means the attorney general of Arizona or the attorney general's authorized delegate.

3. "Authorized delegate" means any attorney, investigator or administrative personnel employed by the attorney general and so designated, and, if requested by the county attorney and authorized by the attorney general, may include similar personnel employed by the several county attorneys of this state.

4. "Examine" means the inspection, study or copying of any account, book, document, merchandise, paper or record.

5. "Merchandise" means any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services.

6. "Person" means any natural person or the person's legal representative, any partnership or domestic or foreign corporation, any company, trust, business entity or association or any agent, employee, salesman, partner, officer, director, member, stockholder, associate or trustee.

7. "Sale" means any sale, offer for sale or attempt to sell any merchandise for any consideration, including sales, leases and rentals of any real estate subject to any form of deed restriction imposed as part of a previous sale.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 137 cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 365 P.3d 944 (Ariz. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 365 P.3d 944 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 5× “Finally, we hold that prescription drugs are “merchandise” for purposes of the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 through -1534, and the CFA does not require a direct merchant-consumer transaction to support a patient’s statutory claim against a drug manufacturer.”

Grand v. Nacchio, 147 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “The trial court dismissed the majority of the claims, and the Trust filed a second amended complaint. That complaint alleged violations of Arizona securities laws under A.”

State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “§ 44-1521(7) (2003), and an advertisement "includes the attempt by publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation, oral or written, to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any merchandise.”

Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 2× “,i the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., and New York General Business Law § 349; and claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief.”

Qwest Corp. v. Kelly, 59 P.3d 789 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “McMahon is seeking damages for Qwest’s alleged tortious conduct and violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 through 1534, as well as injunctive relief, requesting that Qwest be ordered to discontinue its allegedly unlawful practices.”

Loomis v. U.S. Bank Home Mortg., 912 F. Supp. 2d 848 (D. Ariz. 2012). · cites it 8× “§ 44-1695 et seq, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1521. Plaintiffs further allege violations of the common law torts of negligent misrepresentation, negligence, defamation, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage against USB.”

Alaface v. Nat'l Inv. Co., 892 P.2d 1375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “On appeal, the Alafaces argue that even though Triangle denied them water service in November 1985 and DHS denied their request for water service in July 1986, they did not discover until March 1987 that when Martin misrepresented the water situation she was or should have been…”

Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 158 P.3d 232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “AFX alleged, as amended, breach of both agreements, fraud, violation of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 through 44-1534, unlawful activity pursuant to A.”

Villegas v. Transamerica Fin. Servs., Inc., 708 P.2d 781 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “” Put shortly, Transamerica's position is that the lending of money is not the sale or advertisement of merchandise.”

Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law Sch., LLC, 151 F. Supp. 3d 978 (D. Ariz. 2015). · cites it 4× “Lorona’s claims arising from her enrollment Lorona claims Defendants defrauded her in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq. and Arizona common law because' the above-mentioned representations were false arid she detrimentally relied on these representations in deciding to enroll…”

Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 521 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. 1974). · cites it 4× “Appellants brought their suit in four causes of action; first, for damages for breach of contract and failure to repair the mobile home; second, under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., and Fraudulent Advertising Practices Act, § 44 — 1481, for deceptive…”

Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 890 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “CONSUMER FRAUD ACTION Appellants contend that CA violated the Consumer Fraud Act (Act), A.R.S. § 44-1521, et seq., by omitting material facts and making misrepresentations to Molly in seffing and promoting its tours.”

Show all 137 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521(1) — 7 cases

State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “§ 44-1521(7) (2003), and an advertisement "includes the attempt by publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation, oral or written, to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any merchandise.”

Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 365 P.3d 944 (Ariz. 2016). “Finally, we hold that prescription drugs are “merchandise” for purposes of the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 through -1534, and the CFA does not require a direct merchant-consumer transaction to support a patient’s statutory claim against a drug manufacturer.”

Villegas v. Transamerica Fin. Servs., Inc., 708 P.2d 781 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “” Put shortly, Transamerica's position is that the lending of money is not the sale or advertisement of merchandise.”

Williams v. TMC Health (D. Ariz. 2024).

Polite (D. Ariz. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521(4) — 1 case

Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 342 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521(5) — 21 cases

Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc., 300 P.3d 907 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 890 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “CONSUMER FRAUD ACTION Appellants contend that CA violated the Consumer Fraud Act (Act), A.R.S. § 44-1521, et seq., by omitting material facts and making misrepresentations to Molly in seffing and promoting its tours.”

Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law Sch., LLC, 188 F. Supp. 3d 927 (D. Ariz. 2016).

People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust, 618 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521(6) — 2 cases

Casaceli v. Liberty Healthcare Corp. (D. Ariz. 2023).

People ex rel. Nelson v. Superior Court, 514 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521(7) — 12 cases

Enyart v. Transamerica Ins., 985 P.2d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).

Flagstaff Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sullivan, 773 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Ariz. 1991).

J-Squared Tech., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 2d 449 (D. Del. 2005).

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.