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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522 (2026)

Unlawful practices; intended interpretation of provisions

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

A. The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.

B. The violation of chapter 9, article 16 or chapter 19, article 1 of this title is declared to be an unlawful practice and subject to enforcement under this article.

C. It is the intent of the legislature, in construing subsection A, that the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal trade commission and the federal courts to 15 United States Code sections 45, 52 and 55(a)(1).

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 162 cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 46× “¶ 3 Relying on the inspection data collected by the DWM, in 2006, the State sued AutoZone under the CFA, A.R.S. § 44-1522 (Supp.2010). The CFA proscribes both deceptive acts or practices in the sale or advertisement of merchandise ("act clause"), as well as the concealment or…”
Haisch v. Allstate Ins., 5 P.3d 940 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 26× “a "deceptive act, fraud, false pretense, [or] misrepresentation" within the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1522(A); or b. a misrepresentation that would support a claim for negligent misrepresentation, common-law fraud, or violation of A.”
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 626 P.2d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 30× “The State of Arizona brought this action against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company alleging that certain Goodyear advertising practices constituted violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, specifically A.R.S. § 44-1522. The superior court granted a motion for summary judgment…”
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 694 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 20× “The trial court held, as a matter of law, that Western American's conduct, including the use of a "conditional" loan commitment letter in mortgage loan transactions, did not amount to a deceptive or misleading act or practice, or fraud, false pretense, false promise or…”
Peery v. Hansen, 585 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 12× “Appellants sought damages in Count One of their counterclaim for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1522, and in Count Two for common law misrepresentation.”
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 275 P.3d 1278 (Ariz. 2012). · cites it 11× “The State alleged that, by violating the Pricing Act, AutoZone had also violated A.R.S. § 44-1522(A), which provides as follows: The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or…”
Cheatham v. ADT Corp., 161 F. Supp. 3d 815 (D. Ariz. 2016). · cites it 4× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522 (A). A statement is “deceptive” if it has the “tendency and capacity to convey misleading impressions to consumers,” even if “interpretations that would not be misleading also are possible.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc., 725 P.2d 727 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 11× “Since our legislature has chosen to define a pyramid scheme, and the parties have conceded that the operation of such a scheme would be an unlawful practice within the meaning of A.R.S. § 44-1522 5 , we find that this statute, rather than the federal case law, is the legal…”
Powers v. Guar. Rv, Inc., 278 P.3d 333 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “Although A.R.S. § 44-1522 does not “incorporate an intent requirement, .”
Kuehn v. Stanley, 91 P.3d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Consumer fraud ¶ 16 The Kuehns next argue that the trial court erred when it summarily dismissed their claim under Arizona’s consumer fraud statute, A.R.S. § 44-1522. That statute provides: The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice,…”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 4× “22 (2) Specific State Statutes Arizona Consumer Protection Claim The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“ACFA”) prohibits the act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment,…”
People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust, 618 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 10× “ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT The attorney general’s complaint, as amended and as further articulated in a more definite statement, alleged violations of A.R.S. § 44-1522 set forth in six separate counts: (1) that appellees orally represented to customers that the cost of a…”
Show all 162 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522(A) — 78 cases
Haisch v. Allstate Ins., 5 P.3d 940 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “a "deceptive act, fraud, false pretense, [or] misrepresentation" within the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1522(A); or b. a misrepresentation that would support a claim for negligent misrepresentation, common-law fraud, or violation of A.”
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 3 Relying on the inspection data collected by the DWM, in 2006, the State sued AutoZone under the CFA, A.R.S. § 44-1522 (Supp.2010). The CFA proscribes both deceptive acts or practices in the sale or advertisement of merchandise ("act clause"), as well as the concealment or…”
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 694 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The trial court held, as a matter of law, that Western American's conduct, including the use of a "conditional" loan commitment letter in mortgage loan transactions, did not amount to a deceptive or misleading act or practice, or fraud, false pretense, false promise or…”
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 275 P.3d 1278 (Ariz. 2012). “The State alleged that, by violating the Pricing Act, AutoZone had also violated A.R.S. § 44-1522(A), which provides as follows: The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or…”
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 3d 578 (D.N.J. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522(B) — 8 cases
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 626 P.2d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “The State of Arizona brought this action against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company alleging that certain Goodyear advertising practices constituted violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, specifically A.R.S. § 44-1522. The superior court granted a motion for summary judgment…”
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 694 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The trial court held, as a matter of law, that Western American's conduct, including the use of a "conditional" loan commitment letter in mortgage loan transactions, did not amount to a deceptive or misleading act or practice, or fraud, false pretense, false promise or…”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp., 725 P.2d 752 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc., 725 P.2d 727 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Since our legislature has chosen to define a pyramid scheme, and the parties have conceded that the operation of such a scheme would be an unlawful practice within the meaning of A.R.S. § 44-1522 5 , we find that this statute, rather than the federal case law, is the legal…”
Holeman v. Neils, 803 F. Supp. 237 (D. Ariz. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522(C) — 7 cases
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “22 (2) Specific State Statutes Arizona Consumer Protection Claim The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“ACFA”) prohibits the act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment,…”
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 275 P.3d 1278 (Ariz. 2012). “The State alleged that, by violating the Pricing Act, AutoZone had also violated A.R.S. § 44-1522(A), which provides as follows: The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or…”
Irwin v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, 175 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (C.D. Ill. 2016).
In Re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 692 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
In Re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 798 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
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.