Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act Requires Some Showing Of Intent

 

In a recent case, the State of Arizona sued AutoZone alleging that AutoZone had violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”) by mispricing -- offering for sale goods that displayed a price different than the price scanned at the register -- and by non-pricing -- offering for sale goods not priced individually or at the point of display.  AutoZone argued that the CFA required an intent element and that its mispricing and non-pricing were unintentional.  The State argued that the CFA imposes strict liability.  The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of AutoZone and the State appealed.  The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the State’s strict liability argument and found that the CFA requires a form of intent.  Because the State presented evidence that AutoZone had offered mispriced and non-priced goods for sale, the burden then shifted to AutoZone to rebut the State’s prima facie showing that it had acted with the requisite intent.  The Court found, based on the record before it, that AutoZone was not entitled to summary judgment and remanded the matter back for further proceedings.