Arizona

• Pages: 39-48

39

CHAPTER 4

ARIZONA

A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action

The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA)1 is a “broadly d rafted

remedial provision designed to eliminate unlawful practices in merchant-

consumer transactions.”2 The ACFA makes it unlawful to use:

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 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.3

The ACFA is “much broader in its scope” than common law fraud.4

Given its expansive terms and remedial purpose, the ACFA is not subject

to restrictive interpretation.5

1. Deception, Unfairness, or Material Omission

An act or practice is “deceptive” under the ACFA if it has the

“tendency and capacity to convey misleading impressions” to “the least

sophisticated reader” or consumer, “even though interpretations that

1. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 44-1521 to 44-1534.

2. Shaw v. CTVT Motors, 300 P.3d 907, 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting

Madsen v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 694 P.2d 1228, 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App.

1985)); see also Powers v. Guaranty RV, Inc., 278 P.3d 333, 339 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 2012) (“The [CFA] is designed to root out and eliminate unlawful

practices in merchant-consumer transactions.”) (citations omitted). The

ACFA does not require that a transaction covered by the Act involve a

“merchant,” but only that “merchandise” be involved. Holeman v. Neils,

803 F. Supp. 237, 243 (D. Ariz. 1992).

3. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1522(A).

4. Cearley v. Wieser, 727 P.2d 346, 348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

5. People ex rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust, 618 P.2d 1086, 1090 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 1980) superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in State

ex rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983).