State of Arizona ex rel. Thomas C. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., A…

Summary

The court held that the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act distinguishes actionable omissions from deceptive acts or practices, and that repeated failures to price merchandise may constitute a deceptive practice even though an isolated failure ordinarily would be analyzed as an omission. It further held that the Act does not authorize disgorgement of AutoZone's receipts to the State and that the State was not yet entitled to attorney's fees because it had not prevailed. The court vacated the relevant portions of the court of appeals' decision and remanded for further proceedings.