State ex rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
In State ex rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 128 Ariz. 483, 626 P.2d 1115 (App. 1981), the State alleged a tire manufacturer had violated the CFA by advertising tire prices without disclosing that federal excise taxes would be added to the price of the tires or explaining the meaning of "ply rating." Id. at 484-85, 626 P.2d at 1116-17.
The manufacturer essentially argued, first, its advertisements were not deceptive as a matter of law, and second, the CFA required the State to show "an intent to deceive." Id. at 485-86, 626 P.2d at 1117-18.
Although we agreed with the first argument, we disagreed with the second argument.
The Court explained the CFA's act clause only required a showing of "an intent to do the act involved," and, in that case, submission of the allegedly deceptive advertisements was sufficient to make that showing.
In light of the purpose of the CFA, which is to protect the public from deceptive acts, we hold that the only showing of intent required by A.R.S. 44-1522 is an intent to do the act involved. It is not necessary to show a specific intent to deceive. Id. at 486, 626 P.2d at 1118.