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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407 (2026)

Effect on other laws

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in subsection B, this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

B. This chapter does not affect:

1. Contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.

2. Other civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.

3. Criminal remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 13× “§ 44-407. B. ¶ 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.”
HTS, Inc. v. Boley, 954 F. Supp. 2d 927 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 5× “AUTSA Preemption The AUTSA, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-407, preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state that provide civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Orca Commc'ns Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, 314 P.3d 89 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “AR.S. § 44-407. ¶ 29 The AUTSA’s preemption provision is identical to the provision adopted by most states.”
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope, 964 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 44-407. It does not affect “[o]ther civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Ariz. 2012). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
Firetrace USA, LLC v. Jesclard, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Ariz. 2010). · cites it 3× “Preemptive Effect of the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act Defendants argue the claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, *1047 breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference are prohibited by the preemption provision of the Arizona…”
Calisi v. Unified Fin. Servs., LLC, 302 P.3d 628 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 44-407 (2003) (UTSA displaces “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws .”
Efund Capital Partners v. Pless, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-407 (statutory tort remedy does not effect contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of trade secrets).”
Tracer Rsch. Corp. v. Nat'l Env't Servs. Co., 42 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1994). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 44-407 (statutory tort remedy does not affect contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of trade secrets).”
Universal Engraving, Inc. v. Metal Magic, Inc., 602 F. App'x 367 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “The district court dismissed UEI’s claims, other than the claim under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), on the ground that those claims were precluded by Ariz. Rev. Stat § 44-407. At the time of the dismissal, the court did not have the benefit of the subsequent…”
Modulus Global Inc. v. Quintzy FZE LLC, No. 2:22-cv-01457 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20, 2023). · cites it 5× “§ 44-407 “displaces only conflicting tort claims for ‘misappropriation’ of a ‘trade 8 secret,’ terms AUTSA specifically defines, and leaves undisturbed claims ‘that are not 9 based on misappropriation of a trade secret.’” Orca, 337 P.”
Cadence Bank v. Heritage Fam. Offices LLP, No. 4:23-cv-00124 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2024). · cites it 5× “R.S. § 44-407. The Arizona 18 Supreme Court has explained A.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(A): 7 cases
Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014). “§ 44-407. B. ¶ 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.”
HTS, Inc. v. Boley, 954 F. Supp. 2d 927 (D. Ariz. 2013). “AUTSA Preemption The AUTSA, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-407, preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state that provide civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Ariz. 2012). “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
Orca Commc'ns Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, 314 P.3d 89 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “AR.S. § 44-407. ¶ 29 The AUTSA’s preemption provision is identical to the provision adopted by most states.”
Sweat, No. 2:25-cv-01686 (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2026).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B): 4 cases
Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014). “§ 44-407. B. ¶ 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.”
HTS, Inc. v. Boley, 954 F. Supp. 2d 927 (D. Ariz. 2013). “AUTSA Preemption The AUTSA, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-407, preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state that provide civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope, 964 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Ariz. 2013). “A.R.S. § 44-407. It does not affect “[o]ther civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Ariz. 2012). “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B)(1): 1 case
Diazteca v. Palenque, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0156 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 3, 2018).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B)(2): 1 case
Orca Commc'ns Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, 314 P.3d 89 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “AR.S. § 44-407. ¶ 29 The AUTSA’s preemption provision is identical to the provision adopted by most states.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B)(l): 1 case
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Ariz. 2012). “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
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.