SB 1256 is a narrow technical correction to Arizona’s consumer fraud statute, A.R.S. § 44-1527. The bill updates the wording of the enforcement provision governing what the attorney general may do when a person fails to comply with a demand or subpoena issued under the consumer fraud laws. It makes a small grammatical/clarifying change by replacing the phrase “he may request” with “the attorney general may request,” while leaving the underlying enforcement authority unchanged.
Under the bill, the attorney general may still petition superior court for contempt, injunctive relief, or other appropriate relief when a person does not comply with a subpoena or demand. The bill also preserves the court’s authority to grant relief when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of the consumer fraud article has occurred or is about to occur, and it keeps the in camera review procedure for evidence when disclosure would not be in the best interests of the investigation.
Impact
The bill does not create a new regulatory program or expand consumer fraud enforcement powers; instead, it amends an existing statute to modernize and clarify language in the attorney general’s subpoena-enforcement process. Its legal effect is limited to A.R.S. § 44-1527 and related consumer fraud enforcement proceedings, with no apparent change to substantive rights, penalties, or investigative standards. The primary affected party is the Arizona Attorney General’s office, along with businesses or individuals subject to consumer fraud investigations and subpoenas.
Sentiment
Because the bill is a technical correction, the available record suggests a neutral to routine sentiment rather than controversy. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating debate, opposition, or policy disagreement. The measure appears to be administrative housekeeping intended to clean up statutory language without altering policy.
Contention
No notable points of contention are evident in the available materials. The bill’s only substantive change is stylistic and gender-neutral wording in one subsection, so any concern would likely be limited to whether the correction is necessary or whether it should be handled as part of a broader statutory cleanup. There is no indication of disagreement over consumer fraud enforcement authority, subpoena powers, or court remedies.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.