State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc.
227 Ariz. 471
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Arizona pricing statute requires price display and prohibits misrepresentation of price, size, or weight of goods; DWM inspected AutoZone from 2001–2006 and fined AutoZone $170,000 for Pricing Statute violations.
- State sued AutoZone in 2006 under CFA alleging mispricing (mispriced goods) and no pricing (unpriced goods) during the relevant period (2001–July 2006).
- CFA prohibits deceptive acts or practices (act clause) and concealment/omission with intent that others rely (omission clause); act clause requires no express intent element.
- Superior court denied summary judgment to both sides; it held no strict liability under the act clause and rejected application of act clause to no-pricing, leading to mixed rulings and cross-appeal.
- Arizona precedent Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. State of Arizona (Goodyear) establishes the act clause requires intent to do the act involved, not strict liability, and allows a prima facie showing of intent from the act itself.
- The Court remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, and discusses whether disgorgement may be available as a CFA remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFA act clause imposes strict liability. | State argues act clause is strict liability requiring no intent. | AutoZone argues act clause requires intent to display inaccurate prices. | Act clause requires intent to do the act involved. |
| What intent standard applies to the act clause under Goodyear. | State favors no additional intent beyond act. | AutoZone argues need to show no intent beyond act. | Intent to do the act involved suffices; Goodyear controls. |
| Whether AutoZone's mispricing can support liability given prima facie proof of intent. | State shows mispricing as prima facie intent; rebuttal allowed. | AutoZone entitled to rebut prima facie showing of intent. | Remand to determine AutoZone's rebuttal on intent. |
| Whether no pricing constitutes a deceptive act under the act clause or an omission under the omission clause. | No pricing can be a deceptive act under the act clause. | Omission clause governs no-pricing; absence of price is omission. | No pricing is a deceptive act under the act clause when there is a duty to disclose; otherwise subject to omission analysis. |
| Whether disgorgement is an available CFA remedy. | State seeks disgorgement under CFA broad equitable powers. | Disgorgement not expressly authorized by CFA; not appropriate. | Disgorgement available under CFA as a potential remedy (though remand to determine specifics). |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. State ex rel. Horner, 128 Ariz. 483 (App. 1981) (intent to do the act involved governs CFA act-clause liability; not strict liability)
- Alaface v. Nat'l Inv. Co., 181 Ariz. 586 (App. 1994) (act clause does not require deception-specific intent)
- Tolleson v. Tolleson, 160 Ariz. 385 (App. 1989) (CFA interpretation and intent considerations related to act/omission)
- Siler v. Ariz. Dep't of Real Estate, 193 Ariz. 374 (App. 1998) (cites CFA interpretations and intent standards)
- Madsen v. West Western Mortgage Co., 143 Ariz. 614 (App. 1985) (deceptive representations standard; least sophisticated reader)