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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-7802 (2026)

Acceptance of credit card agreement

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

44-7802. Acceptance of credit card agreement

A cardholder's acceptance of the terms and conditions of a credit card account may be established as binding and enforceable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement or by either of the following other methods:

1. The cardholder's written or electronic signature or by any other electronic record acceptance as provided by title 44, chapter 26, article 1.

2. Any cardholder or authorized user uses the credit card account.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2015–2018 · leading case: Copper State v. Espiritu (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Copper State v. Espiritu (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Therefore, even disregarding A.R.S. § 44-7802(2) (stating a cardholder’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of a credit card account may be established as binding and enforceable simply through authorized use of the account), the action is properly classified as one brought…”
Capital One v. Castronova (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-7802(2). Capital One offered still more evidence to demonstrate that Castronova defaulted under the agreement when she exhausted her $20,000 credit line and stopped making payments in July 2015.”
Cach v. Martin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 44-7802. Moreover, the Martins never disclaimed a contractual obligation to pay CACH.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-7802(2) — 2 cases
Copper State v. Espiritu (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Therefore, even disregarding A.R.S. § 44-7802(2) (stating a cardholder’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of a credit card account may be established as binding and enforceable simply through authorized use of the account), the action is properly classified as one brought…”
Capital One v. Castronova (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-7802(2). Capital One offered still more evidence to demonstrate that Castronova defaulted under the agreement when she exhausted her $20,000 credit line and stopped making payments in July 2015.”
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.