State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc.
229 Ariz. 358
Ariz.2012Background
- Arizona CFA framework interpretation; Pricing Act governs pricing duties and CFA claims.
- AutoZone allegedly violated Pricing Act by failing to price items; Department fined AutoZone 2001–2006.
- State alleges CFA violation via Act Clause and/or Omission Clause; seeks injunctive relief and penalties.
- Disgorgement to AG under CFA § 44-1528(A)(1) debated; restitution to consumers under § 44-1528(A)(2) abandoned.
- Superior court denied motions; court of appeals reversed on issue of whether Act Clause applies to non-pricing.
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide governing clause, disgorgement remedy, and fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which clause governs non-pricing CFA claims? | State: Act Clause controls habitual non-pricing conduct. | AutoZone: Omission Clause governs because it involves failure to price (omission). | Neither clause governs exclusively; depend on whether conduct is an act or omission and whether it's a practice. |
| Does CFA authorize disgorgement to the State? | State: CFA § 44-1528(A)(1) authorizes disgorgement to the state. | AutoZone: CFA does not authorize disgorgement to the State; only restitution to consumers and statutory limits apply. | Disgorgement to the State is not authorized under CFA; remedy not implied by existing text. |
| Was the intermediate fee award proper on appeal? | State: Appellate fees justified given successful aspects of appeal. | AutoZone: Fees improper since judgment not final in State's favor. | Vacate the fee award; not prevailing party; no fee entitlement at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fenwick v. Kay American Jeep, Inc., 72 N.J. 372, 371 A.2d 13 (1977) (regarding deception in advertising under consumer act with regulatory backdrop)
- State ex rel. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v., 128 Ariz. 483, 626 P.2d 1115 (App. 1981) (Babbitt line on CFA and limitations on disgorgement remedies)
- State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Hayden, 210 Ariz. 522, 115 P.3d 116 (2005) (statutory remedies and interpretations under Arizona CFA framework)
- Lancaster v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 143 Ariz. 451, 694 P.2d 281 (App. 1984) (canon against reading remedies into statutes where not provided)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Santa Rosa Sales & Mktg., Inc., 475 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 1991) (earlier disgorgement debate informing statutory interpretation)
- FTC v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (disgorgement discussed under federal remedies framework)
- FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 908 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (disgorgement and federal remedies considered in anti-fraud enforcement)
- Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 710 P.2d 1025 (1985) (interlocutory fee considerations and prevailing party principles)