Arizona has no general usury statute. That fact does not leave Arizona business owners without options. It means the legal strategy relies on different tools, and those tools are effective when properly deployed.

Arizona’s economy — construction, hospitality, healthcare, technology, real estate services, retail, and professional services across Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsdale, Mesa, and statewide — generates significant demand for small business working capital. MCA companies target Arizona businesses aggressively, and the stacking of multiple advances is common.

Arizona repealed its general usury statute in 1980, making it one of the few states with no general interest rate cap for most transactions. This makes Arizona a favorable choice-of-law jurisdiction for MCA companies — some agreements select Arizona law specifically because of the absence of a usury cap. But the absence of a usury statute does not eliminate legal remedies. It shifts the legal strategy to other frameworks that are powerful in their own right.

The Legal Landscape in Arizona

While Arizona has no general usury statute, the state maintains regulatory requirements for lenders through the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions. An entity making loans in Arizona may be required to obtain a consumer lender license or a commercial mortgage banker license depending on the transaction type. If the MCA is recharacterized as a loan, the funder may be operating as an unlicensed lender in Arizona, which creates regulatory exposure and may independently affect the enforceability of the agreement.

Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., prohibits deceptive or unfair acts and practices in trade or commerce. The statute provides a private right of action with actual damages, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and attorney’s fees. The CFA is the primary legal tool for Arizona MCA borrowers. It covers the full range of MCA-related misconduct: misrepresentation of costs, omission of material terms, failure to honor reconciliation obligations, deceptive collection practices, and mischaracterization of the nature of the transaction.

Arizona courts are familiar with substance-over-form arguments in commercial transaction disputes and are equipped to evaluate whether a transaction labeled as a purchase is, in substance, a loan. While the state’s MCA-specific case law is still developing, the analytical framework is well-established through lending and commercial transaction precedent.

Recharacterization and Usury

Recharacterization in Arizona does not trigger a usury defense because there is no usury cap to exceed. However, recharacterization still matters significantly for two independent reasons. First, if the MCA is a loan, the funder may be required to be licensed as a lender under Arizona law. An unlicensed lender operating in Arizona faces regulatory action by the Department of Financial Institutions and potential unenforceability of the loan agreement. The licensing requirement applies regardless of the interest rate.

Second, recharacterization supports Consumer Fraud Act claims. If the funder represented the transaction as a purchase of receivables when it was, in substance, a loan, the mischaracterization is a deceptive practice under the CFA. The funder told the business owner one thing — this is not a loan, this is a purchase — while the substance of the transaction was exactly a loan. That mischaracterization affected the business owner’s understanding of their rights, their obligations, and the regulatory protections available to them. The deception is material and actionable.

Your Relief Options

Consumer Fraud Act claims. Deceptive marketing, cost misrepresentation, mischaracterization of the transaction, reconciliation refusal, and illegal collection practices are actionable under Arizona’s CFA with actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The punitive damages exposure gives the CFA significant teeth even in the absence of a usury statute.

Unlicensed lending challenge. If the MCA is recharacterized as a loan, the funder’s lack of an Arizona lending license creates regulatory exposure and potential unenforceability of the agreement. The licensing challenge is independent of the interest rate and provides an avenue for relief that does not depend on a usury analysis.

Challenge to out-of-state judgments. Arizona’s enforcement of foreign judgment procedures, governed by A.R.S. § 12-1701 et seq., provide opportunities to challenge New York confessions of judgment on jurisdictional and substantive grounds before the judgment can be enforced against Arizona assets.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted
Multi-State Licensed
Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

Settlement negotiation leveraging CFA exposure, licensing challenges, and domestication defenses. The funder’s preference for avoiding Arizona litigation — where a jury may award punitive damages for deceptive practices — creates meaningful settlement opportunities.

Practical Steps

Gather your MCA agreement, payment records, and all communications with the funder and broker. Identify any deceptive representations about the cost, terms, nature, or regulatory status of the transaction. Document any illegal collection practices including threats, harassment, or unauthorized debits.

Consult an Arizona attorney experienced in commercial financing disputes and Consumer Fraud Act litigation. While Arizona’s lack of a usury statute changes the strategy compared to states like New York or Georgia, the Consumer Fraud Act, licensing requirements, and domestication defenses provide meaningful and effective tools for MCA borrowers. The absence of one tool does not mean the absence of all tools.