Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522

A private damages claim for a practice prohibited by § 44-1522(A) requires actual reliance and damage, but does not require a right to rely.

Peery v. Hansen · filed 1978-09-20(A)

A prerequisite to such damages is reliance on the unlawful acts. ... We hold that the right to rely, though a necessary element in a common law fraud action, is not essential to a statutory fraud action in Arizona.

Section 44-1522 requires a consumer seeking monetary damages for a misrepresentation to prove resulting damage.

Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc. · filed 1980-03-20(A)

Having failed to prove an essential element of their desired cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act — damages—the trial court properly directed a verdict in defendants’ favor on this count.

Section 44-1522(A) does not require reliance, actual deception, or damage for a consumer fraud action brought by the attorney general.

People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust · filed 1980-04-08(A)

The short answer to this argument is that reliance or actual deception or damage is not a prerequisite to a consumer fraud action brought by the attorney general. A.R.S. § 44-1522(A).

Section 44-1522(A) requires a consumer fraud plaintiff to show reliance on the alleged misrepresentation.

Kuehn v. Stanley · filed 2004-06-07(A)

And because they have waived the “other options” argument, the Kuehns have failed to present any evidence that they relied on the appraisal report in entering into or performing the contract. The trial court therefore did not err when it granted summary judgment on their claim under Arizona’s consumer fraud statute.

A private consumer fraud claim under § 44-1522 is proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. · filed 1983-03-08

A "preponderance of the evidence" instruction effectuates the legislative intent by affording maximum protection to injured consumers; it is consistent with the general rule that civil cases must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence; and Jimmy has cited no authority in support of its contention that a higher degree of proof is required. For these reasons, we find the jury was properly instructed.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a false promise or misrepresentation connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and a resulting injury.

Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. v. Sullivan · filed 1991-08-22(A)

In order to establish a violation of the ACFA, the injured consumer must show “a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.”

Section 44-1522 requires a deceptive or fraudulent act connected to the sale of merchandise, intent that the consumer rely on concealment, and a resulting injury.

Howell v. Midway Holdings, Inc. · filed 2005-03-28

To succeed on this claim, the Howells must show that Midway committed a deceptive or fraudulent act in connection with the sale of merchandise, that Midway intended the Howells to rely on their concealment, and that the Howells suffered a consequent and proximate injury.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a false promise or misrepresentation connected to the sale or advertisement of merchandise and a resulting injury.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC · filed 2010-09-07(A)

To succeed on a claim of consumer fraud in violation of the ACFA, a plaintiff must show “a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and consequent and proximate injury resulting from the promise.”

Section 44-1522 does not allow a distributor to sue over the secret sale of distribution rights to another distributor when it is neither a buyer nor the target of deceptive advertising.

Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Vintage Selections · filed 1992-07-31

Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act makes it illegal to commit fraud or deception "in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise." A.R.S. § 44-1522. The clear intent of this provision is to protect unwary buyers from unscrupulous sellers. The basis for Vintage's claim, however, is that Sutter Home deceived it by secretly selling to another distributor the exclusive rights to distribute its wine. Under this scenario, Vintage is not a buyer, nor is it the target of deceptive advertising. Consequently, it cannot maintain an action under Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act.

Section 44-1522(A) does not cover a manufacturer’s representative who markets products without purchasing merchandise.

J-Squared Technologies, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. · filed 2005-04-13(A)

Agreeing to market such products does not amount to the purchase of merchandise, and does not qualify plaintiffs as buyers under the Act.

Section 44-1522 does not give a property seller a consumer fraud claim against the purchaser.

Lemad v. Miravista · filed 2014-09-18

LeMad contends that the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1522, not only provides a cause of action against sellers, but also against purchasers. We conclude otherwise. ... Because LeMad was the seller, not the purchaser or buyer of the Property, the superior court did not err by summarily dismissing LeMad’s Consumer Fraud Act claim.

Section 44-1522 allows a third-party beneficiary of a consumer transaction to bring a consumer fraud claim.

Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... · filed 2016-01-19(A)

In view of the broad language and remedial purpose of the CFA, Jessyka’s status as a third-party beneficiary to the transaction, and the persuasive reasoning of other courts that have addressed this or similar issues, we conclude she has standing to bring a claim under the statute.

Section 44-1522(A) does not require a direct merchant-consumer transaction for a consumer fraud claim.

Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation · filed 2016-01-21(A)

Thus, the statute does not expressly require a direct merchant-consumer transaction. Rather, to succeed on a claim of consumer fraud, a plaintiff must show (1) a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of “merchandise,” and (2) consequent and proximate injury resulting from the misrepresentation.

Section 44-1522 requires a consumer-merchant relationship involving the sale or advertisement of merchandise; health care services incidental to employment do not qualify.

Griffey v. Magellan Health Incorporated · filed 2021-09-27

Similarly, Williams’ health care services were incidental to her employment and do not implicate the merchant-consumer relationship contemplated by the AzCFA.

Section 44-1522 does not require a direct merchant-consumer transaction when a misrepresentation is connected with the sale of services.

United Healthcare Services Incorporated v. Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC · filed 2022-09-30

The Court rejects the Provider Defendants’ argument that United lacks standing to bring a claim under the ACFA. Contrary to their arguments, the ACFA does not require a direct merchant-consumer transaction.

Section 44-1522(A) supports a consumer fraud claim when a seller misrepresents merchandise in connection with its sale or advertisement and the buyer relies on the misrepresentation and is harmed.

Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law School, LLC · filed 2016-05-18(A)

To state a claim for consumer fraud, Lorona must allege (1) the Law School made a false promise or misrepresentation (2) in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise, (3) she relied on the representation, and (4) she was harmed as a result.

Section 44-1522(A) supports a private consumer fraud claim when a misrepresentation connected with a sale causes the buyer economic injury.

Weese v. Lusso Auto LLC · filed 2023-01-18(A)

“The elements of a private cause of action under the [Arizona Consumer Fraud] Act are a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.” Castle v. Barrett-Jackson Auction Co., LLC, 276 P.3d 540, 542 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012); see A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). Here, too, Plaintiff has adequately pled a misrepresentation—Defendants’ statement that they owned the Rolls Royce. Defendants’ misrepresentation was made in connection with the purported sale of the vehicle and upgrades. And again, because of the misrepresentation, Plaintiff suffered economic injury. Accordingly, the Complaint states a claim under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Section 44-1522 requires injury caused by the alleged misrepresentation; failure to receive a loan modification the plaintiffs were never entitled to does not satisfy that requirement.

Rich v. Bank of America · filed 2016-11-21

Because Plaintiffs were never entitled to a loan modification without a balloon payment, their failure to receive one thus cannot constitute the type of “actual and consequent injury” the ACFA requires.

Section 44-1522(A) requires actual reliance on an affirmative misrepresentation to establish proximate injury under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corporation · filed 2021-06-24(A)

Because proximate injury is an element of an ACFA claim, and because actual reliance is required to establish proximate injury, the Court agrees with Defendants that the ACFA claims must be dismissed.

Section 44-1522 does not protect a manufacturer in its contractual relationship with a seller because that relationship is not a merchant-consumer transaction.

Vantage Mobility International LLC v. Kersey Mobility LLC · filed 2020-01-24

The conduct VMI alleges in the FAC is not the type of conduct contemplated by the ACFA, because VMI is not a consumer and its agreement for Kersey to sell its products is not a merchant-consumer transaction.

A plaintiff claiming consumer fraud under subsection (A) must have relied on the misrepresentation or material omission; a third party’s reliance does not suffice.

Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. · filed 2020-09-08(A)

An essential element for a fraudulent omission or false representation claim is actual reliance. ... But the fact that non-parties would have acted differently had the defect been disclosed does not establish Plaintiffs’ reliance on the omission. After all, Plaintiffs cannot sue for fraud on the ground that somebody else was defrauded. To sue for fraud, Plaintiffs had to be defrauded, and Plaintiffs had to take some action in reliance on a misrepresentation or a material omission.

Section 44-1522(A) applies to mortgages, and a borrower can state a consumer fraud claim by alleging reliance on a misrepresentation that caused damages.

Creech v. Barrett Financial Group LLC · filed 2023-07-28(A)

ACFA applies to mortgages. ... Therefore, the Court finds that Creech has pled reliance that led to damages.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a private consumer fraud claimant to allege reliance on a misleading advertisement.

Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports Incorporated · filed 2024-03-25(A)

Unlike the statute at issue in Soto, Arizona’s CFA requires reliance.

A claim under § 44-1522(A) based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions must plead reliance and a causal connection to the sale of merchandise.

TORRES v. U.S. VISION, INC. · filed 2024-04-30(A)

Thus, even applying the lower standard for fraud-by-omission, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as they do not adequately plead that they relied on any of the USV Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations, omissions, and unfair practices as patients of Nationwide and/or patients of the USV Defendants when providing their PII/PHI to Nationwide.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a consumer fraud claimant to allege facts showing fraudulent conduct and resulting injury.

Strojnik v. Flagexpress, LLC · filed 2021-11-09(A)

To state a claim under the ACFA, Strojnik’s complaint must sufficiently allege the Hotel’s franchise agreement was fraudulent and the agreement injured him.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a claimant to hear and rely on a misrepresentation in connection with a sale and suffer resulting injury.

Ormsby v. Nexus RVs, LLC · filed 2023-03-16(A)

Only the hearer of the misrepresentation can pursue an ACFA claim. On this record, the Ormsbys heard the allegedly false representations, not Two J’s.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a consumer fraud plaintiff to show reliance on a misrepresentation in connection with a transaction.

Winingham v. Sig Sauer Incorporated · filed 2024-08-07(A)

Accordingly, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff relied on the statements in connection with the transactions of purchasing or upgrading the P320, and Plaintiff cannot maintain his claim for consumer fraud.

A claim under § 44-1522(A) based on an omission requires facts showing that the consumer was aware of the disclosure alleged to omit material information when the consumer relied on it.

Johnson v. Yuma Regional Medical Center · filed 2024-11-15(A)

In other words, on these facts, it is not possible to establish reliance absent some indication of awareness of the policy claimed to be omitting facts at the time the reliance allegedly occurred.

Section 44-1522(A) requires an ACFA plaintiff to plead reliance on the alleged deceptive practice and a causal link to the resulting injury.

TORRES v. U.S. VISION, INC. · filed 2025-02-26(A)

Plaintiffs do not allege that they relied on USV’s privacy policy, or were even aware of it, before providing their information to Nationwide so there is no factual or causal link between Plaintiffs’ providing their information to Nationwide and any alleged unfair practice from USV.

Section 44-1522 allows consumer fraud claims based on omissions, but the alleged deceptive conduct must be connected to the sale and the plaintiff’s injury.

Cawley v. American Financial Security Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-02-27

Additionally, American Financial’s argument that Vaval “made no false or misleading representations to the Cawleys” ignores that A.R.S. § 44-1522 specifically contemplates consumer fraud liability based on a party’s omissions, not just affirmative statements. ... Any statements, misrepresentations, or omissions may have Vaval made regarding the 2018 policy are, as a matter of law, irrelevant to the 2020 policy. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in American Financial’s favor as to the consumer fraud claim.

Section 44-1522(A) requires some showing of consumer reliance on the alleged fraud or deception.

HUMANA INC. v. MERCK & COMPANY, INC. · filed 2025-09-04(A)

The same reasoning applies to Humana’s claims under Arizona law, which various courts have explained requires some showing of consumer reliance on the alleged fraud or deception.

A consumer fraud claim under § 44-1522(A) requires a false promise or misrepresentation connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and consequent, proximate injury.

Speerly v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2020-11-30(A)

Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act is a typical specimen. “[T]o succeed on a claim of consumer fraud, [under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act] a plaintiff must show (1) a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of ‘merchandise,’ and (2) consequent and proximate injury resulting from the misrepresentation.”

Section 44-1522(A) prohibits deceptive practices even when consumers did not rely on them to their detriment.

Flower World of America, Inc. v. Wenzel · filed 1978-11-22(A)

The key provision is A.R.S. § 44-1522(A) which proscribes deceptive practices regardless of whether consumers relied on such deceptions to their detriment.

Section 44-1522 requires intent to perform the challenged act, but does not require specific intent to deceive.

State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · filed 1981-02-17(A)

In light of the purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act, which is to protect the public from deceptive acts, we hold that the only showing of intent required by A.R.S. § 44-1522 is an intent to do the act involved. It is not necessary to show a specific intent to deceive.

Section 44-1522(A) does not require a defendant to know that a misrepresentation is false.

Cearley v. Wieser · filed 1986-04-03(A)

A.R.S. § 44-1522(A) governs this action. ... As can be seen, there is no requirement in the statute that the defendant have knowledge that the misrepresentations are false.

Section 44-1522(A)'s deceptive-act clause requires the seller to have acted voluntarily.

State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. · filed 2011-08-04(A)

Under that formulation, the State was required to show AutoZone voluntarily intended to do the acts performed, that is, voluntarily offered mispriced or non-priced goods for sale.

Section 44-1522 requires evidence of deception to support a claim under Arizona’s unfair and deceptive trade practices law.

In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation · filed 2012-06-18

Additionally, Indirect Purchasers’ fourth amended class action complaint includes a claim under Arizona’s UDTP statute, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1522, et seq. However, I previously granted GSK’s motion for summary judgment as to Indirect Purchasers’ Arizona UDTP claim because Indirect Purchasers had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether GSK engaged in deception, as required by the Arizona statute. In re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 815 F.Supp.2d. 867, 885-86 (E.D.Pa.2011); see also Kuehn v. Stanley, 208 Ariz. 124, 91 P.3d 346, 351 (App.2004). At this stage in the litigation, with discovery already closed and without any evidence raising a genuine issue as to whether GSK engaged in deception, I do not find that Indirect Purchasers can now seek certification of a class pursuant to Arizona’s UDTP statute.

Section 44-1522(A) does not require a defendant to know a statement is false or intend to deceive.

Argabright v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. · filed 2016-08-15(A)

But importantly, unlike the common law claim of fraudulent concealment, a defendant’s knowledge or belief of the falsity of a statement, or intent to deceive, are not required to establish a violation under the New Jersey, New York, and Arizona consumer fraud statutes.

Section 44-1522(A) requires intent for an unlawful consumer practice.

Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. · filed 2015-03-26(A)

The chart also indicates that Connecticut has no scienter requirement, but Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas do. ... Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1522(A) (requiring intent); ... This sample of state laws appears accurate based on the Court’s independent verification.

Section 44-1522(A) covers a material representation that an insurer is passing reduced-driving savings on to customers when that representation influences the decision to buy insurance.

Jones v. GEICO Casualty Company · filed 2021-08-13(A)

However, if, as Plaintiff alleges, Geico represented that its Giveback program was “passing on savings” commensurate with the risk of driving during the pandemic, the Court finds that such a representation is material to the decision to buy insurance.

A plaintiff may satisfy the knowledge requirement for a claim under § 44-1522(A) by showing that the defendant was willfully blind to the fraud.

In re: Arizona Theranos Incorporated Litigation · filed 2023-05-04(A)

To avoid summary judgment on their allegation of a RICO common purpose, their claims under the AFCA, UCL, and FAL, and their battery claims, Plaintiffs must present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Walgreens either knew of Theranos’s fraud or willfully blinded itself to the fraud.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a false promise or misrepresentation for a consumer fraud claim; an unfair practice alone does not suffice.

Durgan v. U-Haul International Incorporated · filed 2023-10-27(A)

Because Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant made a false promise or misrepresentation, they do not plead a violation of the ACFA.

Section 44-1522(A) permits intent to induce reliance on a material omission to be inferred from allegations that a business concealed practices contrary to accepted standards and consumer expectations.

Strong v. LifeStance Health Group Incorporated · filed 2025-01-28(A)

Allegations that LifeStance acted contrary to broadly accepted standards and expectations are a sufficient basis to infer LifeStance intended for consumer to rely upon the omissions.

Section 44-1522 does not require proof that anyone was actually misled or deceived.

Brandon · filed 2025-12-04

Notably, the statute does not require that anyone actually be misled or deceived.

Section 44-1522 prohibits deceptive practices connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise; silence without additional context does not establish prohibited misconduct.

Finch · filed 2026-02-04(A)

The fact that Defendant McDonald’s was silent thereafter without any additional context does not explain how they “concealed” information, “misled” Plaintiff, or “misrepresented” their obligations in connection with the transaction. The Court cannot infer any misconduct prohibited by ACFA from these facts.

Section 44-1522(A) covers a misleading policy illustration that suggests premiums will remain sustainable at the amounts shown.

James Erickson Family Partnership LLLP v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company · filed 2019-09-25(A)

A representation is deceptive if it “ha[s] a ‘tendency and capacity’ to convey misleading impressions to consumers even though interpretations that would not be misleading also are possible.” ... Unlike the prior iteration of the complaint, the SAC now alleges with reasonable clarity that the 2006 policy illustration was misleading because it suggested the policy was sustainable at the premium amounts used in the illustration.

Section 44-1522(A) covers material omissions in the sale of merchandise when made with intent that others rely on them, even if no one was misled or damaged.

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich · filed 1986-05-02(A)

An unlawful practice is defined as “[t]he act, use or employment by any person or any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon 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....” A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). PMI failed to disclose the lack of expertise of its sales staff and certain background information of its corporate officers (including a previous cease and desist order against Goodrich, previous administrative orders and one conviction). Those were material and relevant facts which the investors were entitled to know prior to entering into the contracts.

Section 44-1522 requires deception or a material omission for a consumer fraud claim; its FTC harmonization provision permits consideration of federal interpretations but does not require courts to follow them.

In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-12-08(A), (C)

By the statute’s terms, an omission must be material. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1522A. ... It is true that Arizona’s harmonization provision allows Arizona judges to consider interpretations of the FTC Act. But it does not require that they follow those federal ... interpretations. ... Unlike the FTC Act, the Arizona statute does not include a prohibition on unfair methods of competition, and it does not prohibit unfair acts and practices in addition to deceptive acts and practices.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment for a consumer fraud claim; an insurer's failure to explain that Med Pay will not duplicate HMO payments is not material.

Haisch v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2000-06-06(A)

Thus, a claim for common-law fraud or consumer fraud under A.R.S. § 44-1522(A) must be based on a misrepresentation, omission, or concealment that is "material." ... The fact that Med Pay insureds with traditional indemnity health care coverage may receive such windfalls under Allstate's coverage, however, leaves undisturbed our conclusion that Allstate commits neither actionable fraud, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud, nor insurance fraud in failing to advise HMO members of their different status under A.R.S. § 20-1072.

Section 44-1522 requires a plaintiff bringing an omission-based consumer fraud claim to plausibly allege that a material fact was omitted.

Tavilla v. Cephalon, Inc. · filed 2012-05-03(A)

The Court found that Plaintiffs had failed plausibly to allege omission of material facts, particularly when Mr. Tavilla made complaints to Cephalon representatives clearly showing that he knew that Actiq caused his injuries, and particularly when Cephalon told him how to make a claim.

Section 44-1522(A) applies its omission clause to isolated failures to price merchandise.

State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. · filed 2012-05-15(A)

If the State’s complaint had alleged only a single instance or isolated instances of non-pricing, the Omission Clause would provide the appropriate standard for adjudicating CFA liability.

Section 44-1522 supports a consumer fraud claim for an omission only when the omitted fact is logically related to the transaction and rationally significant to the parties.

Demaree v. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated · filed 2013-03-15

Not every omission of fact will support a consumer fraud claim under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522. Instead, an actionable omission “must be logically related to the transaction in which it occurs and rationally significant to the parties in view of the nature and circumstances of the transaction.”

Section 44-1522(A) imposes a duty not to omit a material fact with intent that consumers rely on the omission; an independent duty to disclose is unnecessary.

Cheatham v. ADT Corp. · filed 2016-02-11(A)

Plaintiff has the better of the argument. Home is the Arizona Supreme Court’s most recent statement on the question, and it states in no uncertain terms that the ACFA “itself imposes [an] actionable duty.. .to refrain from.. .an ’omission of any material fact with intent that others rely’ thereon.”

Section 44-1522(A) makes an omission actionable only if the omitted fact is material in the circumstances of the transaction.

Schellenbach v. GoDaddy.com, LLC · filed 2017-07-07(A)

First, for an omission to be actionable under the ACFA, it must be of a “material fact.”

Section 44-1522 prohibits deceptive practices, but a claim based on failure to disclose requires a duty to disclose.

In re: Christina M. Ravago · filed 2017-06-20(A)

Debtor argues on appeal that the ACFA itself imposes the duty, but the duty to refrain from deceptive practices still requires a defendant to have breached a duty to disclose in the first instance.

Section 44-1522 permits a consumer fraud claim based on concealment of a known vehicle defect when the buyer alleges reliance and resulting loss.

YAGUDAYEV v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2020-11-13

In line with the above precedents, the Court finds these allegations sufficient to plead fraud by omission and satisfy the first element of Plaintiff’s ACFA claim.

Section 44-1522’s omission clause requires an alleged omission to relate to a sale or advertisement and to be intended to induce consumer reliance.

Williams v. TMC Health · filed 2024-09-30(A)

Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege they relied on the Website’s omission of facts in connection with seeking healthcare services, nor do they allege an independent sale or advertisement of the Website itself. ... Plaintiffs still fail to allege Defendant intended Plaintiffs rely on the omission in either choosing to use the Website or choosing to use Defendant’s healthcare services.

Section 44-1522(A) supports an omission claim when patients plausibly allege they relied on a provider’s privacy notice and would have acted differently had it disclosed data security deficiencies.

Johnson v. Yuma Regional Medical Center · filed 2025-08-13(A)

In accepting these allegations as true, which the Court must do at this stage, the Court finds these allegations sufficiently raise a plausible inference that Plaintiffs were aware of Yuma Regional’s privacy practices and would have acted differently had Yuma Regional disclosed the alleged security deficiencies.

Section 44-1522(A) covers concealment of material information in the sale or advertisement of services.

Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy · filed 2026-01-23(A)

Consumer fraud pursuant to the ACFA requires concealment of material information in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise, which includes services.

Section 44-1522(A) covers deceptive practices in the sale of services, including services under a vehicle rental agreement.

Schmidt v. American Leasco · filed 1983-12-15(A)

The cause of action was within the provisions of the consumer fraud statute because it involved deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment in the sale of services. A.R.S. § 44-1522(A).

Section 44-1522(A) can cover a mortgage broker's loan commitment that may mislead sellers about whether changed discount points will be renegotiated.

Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. Western American Mortgage Co. · filed 1985-01-15(A)

This "take-it-or-leave-it" approach described by the trial court, when contrasted against the express representation that changes would be renegotiated, cannot be dismissed as conduct outside the scope of the Consumer Fraud and Mortgage Brokers acts. The trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment for Western American.

Section 44-1522(A) prohibits sellers from making false fuel economy or towing capability representations intended to induce a vehicle purchase.

State ex rel. Corbin v. Tucson Public Auction, Inc. · filed 1985-08-01(A)

If a seller takes it upon itself to make representations of fuel economy (or towing capability) with the intent that a prospective buyer rely on the representations in connection with a sale, then the representations must be reasonably true or the seller will be in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1522(A).

Section 44-1522(A) covers deceptive earnings representations, but competing inferences about whether the representations were deceptive preclude summary judgment.

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc. · filed 1986-03-20(A)

Given this record, we hold that it was inappropriate to grant summary judgment on the question of whether appellants had made or authorized deceptive statements concerning earnings to be made in the Challenge marketing program.

Section 44-1522(A) requires merchandise to be involved but does not require the seller to be a merchant.

Holeman v. Neils · filed 1992-05-08(A)

Although the Act, because the statement of its purpose as set forth the Arizona courts, appears to require merchant-consumer transactions, there is no requirement in the statute that there be a merchant, only that merchandise be involved.

Section 44-1522 prohibits deceptive acts connected with a merchandise sale even when the deceiver is not the seller.

State v. Sgrillo · filed 1993-08-26

Defendants seek to avoid this conclusion by arguing that their acts were in aid of a sale by another entity. This is of no assistance because A.R.S. § 44-1522 forbids deceptive acts “in connection with the sale” of any merchandise regardless of whether the deceiver is the seller.

Section 44-1522(A) permits a private consumer fraud claim for misrepresentations or material omissions in selling services even when the alleged violation results in death.

Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. · filed 1994-05-17(A)

A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). The term “merchandise” includes “services.” A.R.S. § 44-1521(5). Accordingly, CA can be held liable for misrepresentations and “concealment, suppression or omission” of any material fact in seffing its services. ... We do not find any basis for an exemption when the damage resulting from the alleged violation is death.

Section 44-1522(A) does not cover the sale of an existing business entity because the entity itself is not merchandise.

Waste Manufacturing & Leasing Corp. v. Hambicki · filed 1995-07-25(A)

We agree that even when a seller offers an existing business entity to the public at large in the same way that a seller would offer cars or washing machines, the Act does not cover the existing business entity precisely because it is a business, not merchandise.

Section 44-1522(A) applies to a seller that voluntarily uses a misrepresentation to make a sale, even if the seller did not originate it or know it was false.

Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. · filed 2012-06-12(A)

We reject Guaranty’s further claim, however, that its conduct does not constitute an “act” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). ... The CFA does not limit liability to the originator of a misrepresentation. Rather, it broadly extends liability to any person who “use[s]” the misrepresentation in connection with the sale of merchandise.

Section 44-1522(A) covers misrepresentations connected with a sale even when they occur after the purchase contract is signed.

Sands v. bill/zinkel · filed 2014-03-20(A)

Further, the statements allegedly made by Tempe Dodge to persuade Sands to buy a different vehicle were made “in connection with” Tempe Dodge’s sale of the Jeep to Sands.

Section 44-1522 applies to deceptive practices in the sale or advertisement of prescription medications.

Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. · filed 2015-01-29

The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) prohibits “any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false promise, [or] misrepresentation” in connection with “the sale or advertisement of any merchandise.” A.R.S. § 44-1522. ... We therefore hold that the CFA applies to the sale and advertisement of prescription medications.

Section 44-1522(A) does not cover representations made after consumers selected a service when those representations were not connected to its sale or advertisement.

Rinehart v. Government Employees Insurance Company · filed 2019-12-10(A)

Plaintiffs do not allege that these two misrepresentations were made in connection with the sale or advertisement of ARX’s services.

Section 44-1522(A) does not cover an insurer’s preapproval of medical care followed by nonpayment when that conduct is unconnected to the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Physicians Surgery Center of Chandler v. Cigna Healthcare Incorporated · filed 2022-07-01(A)

The CFA is inapplicable to the facts of this case. ... But this approval is unconnected “with the sale or advertisement of [ ] merchandise.”

Section 44-1522(A) requires the alleged deception or concealment to be connected with the sale or advertisement of a product or service.

Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy · filed 2023-08-16(A)

Plaintiff’s theory of consumer fraud against Defendant Borges has no connection with the sale or advertisement of any product or service.

Section 44-1522(A) requires the alleged misconduct to be connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise; a former employee’s provision of personal information in connection with employment does not meet that requirement.

Crosby v. OneTouchPoint Inc · filed 2024-09-23(A)

Because the parties’ alleged relationship related to employment, it is not plausible that any misrepresentations or omissions OneTouchPoint made, as they pertain to Meza, would have been “in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise,” as required by the ACFA. See § 44-1522(A).

Section 44-1522(A) requires a connection to the sale or advertisement of merchandise; later account charges, dispute responses, and credit reporting fall outside its scope.

D'Agostino v. Comenity Capital Bank · filed 2024-12-20(A)

This conduct is not in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and thus is not contemplated by ACFA.

Section 44-1522(A) does not cover debt collection conduct unrelated to the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

D'Agostino v. Comenity Capital Bank · filed 2025-01-10(A)

Defendants’ alleged conduct—none of which is related to any sale or advertisement of merchandise—is plainly outside of the scope of the statute.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a misrepresentation or omission to be connected with a sale or advertisement; a subsequent purchaser cannot bring a private claim without that connection.

Bestwick v. Newmar Corporation · filed 2021-12-17(A)

Subsequent purchasers cannot proceed with a private cause of action under the ACFA when no misrepresentation or omission was made in connection with the sale or advertisement.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a misrepresentation connected to the sale or advertising of merchandise that proximately causes damages.

Rigsby v. Godaddy Inc. · filed 2023-02-03(A)

To the extent that Rigsby is alleging that GoDaddy’s sale of the domain name violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Rigsby has still not adequately pleaded a claim. To succeed, Rigsby must establish that GoDaddy (1) made a misrepresentation in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise, and (2) that conduct proximately caused Rigsby to suffer damages. ... Because GoDaddy made no representations regarding the domain or any advertising or merchandise, this claim is a nonstarter.

Section 44-1522 does not apply to discussions about modifying an existing loan when no new loan is offered, because those discussions are not connected to the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Calcut v. Paramount Residential Mortgage Group Incorporated · filed 2024-01-22

Like Rich and its progeny, this case does not involve the solicitation of a new loan, but rather the possibility of modifying an existing debt. Defendants therefore did not act “in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise” within the meaning of the ACFA, and the claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 44-1522(A) prohibits material misrepresentations intended to induce reliance in the sale of goods or services; fake repair orders charging customers for work not performed can support a reasonable belief of consumer fraud.

Murar v. AutoNation Incorporated · filed 2021-09-01(A)

The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act prohibits “misrepresentation . . . of any material fact with intent that others rely on such [misrepresentation] . . . in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). ... Accordingly, viewing these facts in the light most favorable to Murar, a reasonably jury could find that he engaged in protected activity by reporting the alleged fake repair orders.

Section 44-1522(A) did not support a claim against defendants whose alleged market information led the plaintiff to trade cryptocurrency through another platform; the alleged deception was too remote from a sale involving them.

Cox · filed 2026-02-17(A)

As established, CMC is not a trading platform, thus Plaintiff neither bought nor sold HEX on or through CMC. Accordingly, an ACFA claim cannot be maintained against CMC because Plaintiff never traded HEX with or through CMC.

Section 44-1522(A) requires an alleged deceptive act to be connected to the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Kammerer v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC · filed 2025-03-25(A)

A.R.S. § 44–1522(A) prohibits deceptive acts “in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise.” ... Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Pennymac’s deceptive acts were connected to the sale or advertisement of merchandise, his claim for unfair trade practices fails.

Section 44-1522(A) requires a false promise or misrepresentation connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Fussell v. Sun Vista RV Resort LLC · filed 2025-07-29(A)

Neither this paragraph nor the rest of the SAC states or implies Defendants’ “made a false promise or misrepresentation in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522(A).

Section 44-1522(A) requires the alleged deception to be connected to a sale or advertisement of merchandise.

ANDRICH v. BRENNAN · filed 2025-12-12(A)

The statements made in the article were not made in relation to any sale or advertisement of ALM’s or Brennan’s merchandise, because the sale had already occurred when customers bought a subscription. The claim for consumer fraud is futile.

Section 44-1522(A) requires the alleged deception to be connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise; a false promise to stop sending text messages does not satisfy that requirement.

D'Agostino · filed 2026-04-23(A)

But the messages do not allude to the sale or advertisement of merchandise in any way. Because the message does not conceal, suppress, or omit any material fact “in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise,” Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the CFA, and the claim will be dismissed.

Section 44-1522(A) requires the alleged deceptive conduct to be connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise; omissions and statements made during later insurance claim handling do not qualify.

FHMC v. BLUE CROSS · filed 2026-06-22(A)

In neither situation is the CFA applicable. In neither situation is Blue Cross alleged to have made representations “in connection with the sale or advertisement of [ ] merchandise.” A.R.S. § 44-1522(A).

Section 44-1522(A) applies to deceptive conduct connected with a sale or advertisement of merchandise, not to a settlement agreement or its negotiations.

Polite · filed 2025-12-11(A)

So, on its face, the ACFA is clear that a settlement agreement—and the negotiations leading to that agreement—is neither an advertisement nor a sale.

Section 44-1522(A) applies to deceptive conduct connected with merchandise sales or advertisements, not settlement agreements.

Polite · filed 2026-01-23(A)

Although Plaintiff’s ACFA claim in this TAC does not perfectly mirror the ACFA claim in his SAC, both versions of his ACFA are legally insufficient because the ACFA does not apply to settlement agreements.

Section 44-1522 does not provide a fraud claim based on a lender’s failure to inform borrowers of a court ruling, because a misrepresentation of law is not actionable fraud.

Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1977-06-07

With regard to Count III, alleging damages for fraud under A.R.S. § 44-1522, we also affirm the summary judgments. The actionable deception was, according to plaintiffs, Home Federal’s failure to inform them of the holding in Baltimore Life Ins. Co. v. Ham, 15 Ariz.App. 78, 486 P.2d 190 (1971). A misrepresentation of the law does not constitute actionable fraud.

Section 44-1522(B) permits federal law to guide interpretation of what constitutes consumer fraud under subsection (A), but does not authorize its use to interpret civil penalties.

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. · filed 1986-05-22(B)

Initially, A.R.S. § 44-1522(B) states specifically that 15 U.S.C. § 45 may be used as a guide in interpreting A.R.S. § 44-1522(A), which defines consumer fraud in Arizona. Thus, our legislature has stated directly only that the federal statute should be used in determining what constitutes consumer fraud; any further interpretive purpose for which the federal statute should be used in Arizona is speculative.

Section 44-1522(C) permits an Arizona consumer protection claim based on plausibly alleged federal antitrust violations, including price fixing.

UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN LOCAL 854 v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC. · filed 2023-02-23(C)

In nearly half of the disputed states—Arizona, Nevada, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia—consumer protection statutes are co-extensive with antitrust violations of the kind pled by the Consolidated Complaint. ... Insofar as the Court has already found that IPPs have plausibly pled claims for federal antitrust violations, including price fixing, it further finds that IPPs have sufficiently articulated state unfair competition claims in Arizona, Rhode Island, Michigan, Nevada, Utah, and West Virginia.

Section 44-1522(C) permits courts to use FTC interpretations as guidance when applying subsection (A), but that guidance is not binding.

Weidert v. Precision Air · filed 2023-04-06(C)

Moreover, and in any event, the CFA itself provides that such FTC commentary is instructive, but not binding.