Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

SettleADebt — S_AZ PASS-08

Arizona credit-services and credit-repair classification, contracts, cancellation, security, and limited remedies

This pass establishes the rules in the primary bodies actually read and preserves specific application and currentness holds. It does not establish that an actual business is exempt, authorized, entitled to a fee, or liable for a particular refund or award.

The main findings are:

• Arizona’s credit-services definition reaches more than conventional credit repair. It includes compensated assistance obtaining credit from others, and “credit” includes a right to defer payment. That makes some forbearance arrangements relevant to classification, but I did not locate a responsive published Arizona holding deciding that a payment concession, by itself, constitutes “obtaining” credit. Principal reduction alone is not automatically a grant of deferred-payment rights. C001–C007.
• Arizona’s bond-conditioned advance-payment provision and the federal prohibitions must be tested separately. A compliant Arizona bond can satisfy the exception in A.R.S. § 44-1703(1); it does not override CROA or the TSR, establish completion, or turn customer money into earned fees. C016, C020–C027, C052, C068–C074.
• The cancellation language is not uniform. Arizona uses “third day” and a refund obligation measured from receipt of cancellation. CROA’s operative cancellation right uses “third business day,” while its prescribed detachable notice says “3rd day.” That federal discrepancy appears in the original enactment as well as the codification. I have preserved it instead of manufacturing one combined deadline. C035–C037, C056–C058, C084, C086–C087.
• For covered credit-repair telemarketing, two separate conditions must precede requesting or receiving payment: expiration of the represented performance timeframe, and provision of a qualifying consumer report issued more than six months after the promised results were achieved. Neither condition must occur first relative to the other. An early-issued report does not become qualifying merely by aging. C068–C071.
• The currentness evidence has limits. The complete readable OLRC CROA bodies displayed currency through October 7, 2026. A newer October 20 release was only partially recovered. The eCFR displayed Title 16 currency through October 23, 2026. Arizona’s posted statutes were checked against relevant 2023–2026 affected-statute tables, but the original 1988 Arizona enactment and a complete earlier amendment chain were not recovered. C081–C085.

The controlling Arizona starting points are https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/01701.htm, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/01703.htm, and https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/01706.htm. The principal federal texts are https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t15/s1679b/, https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t15/s1679e/, and https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-310. Definitions+5

1. Access, scope, and provenance

2. Substantive findings and atomic claim/evidence tables

2.1 Arizona classification and exclusions

The state inquiry starts with the actual services, consideration, credit purpose, and actor—not the company’s label. A credit-improvement representation can independently matter even if a program is described as education, monitoring, negotiations, or referrals. Conversely, a service does not become credit repair merely because it concerns someone who has debt.

The particularly unresolved boundary is a new payment concession. Arizona’s definition expressly includes a right to defer payment; that supports examining whether an arrangement creates such a right. It does not answer, without more, whether a particular negotiator has obtained an extension of credit, whether an existing right merely continued, or whether a principal reduction without new deferral falls within that branch.

All six state exclusions were read in the operative body. None supplies a general federal exemption. Exemptions+3

2.2 Arizona payment restrictions, security, and public procedure

A bond is a conditional security requirement under this article, not a substitute for a license under another regime and not a customer trust account. The statutory bond base is fees charged under contracts entered during the preceding twelve months. It is not simply cash received, retained revenue, savings, or balances of debts being negotiated.

The face amount, private premium, collateral, customer receipts, earned fees, and consumer recovery are different quantities. The worked ledger below keeps them separate. azleg.gov+4

2.3 Arizona disclosure, agreement, cancellation, and limited remedies

Arizona preserves other-law compliance and nonexclusive remedies in § 44-1712, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/01712.htm. That does not establish duplicate recovery for the same loss. azleg.gov+6

2.4 Federal CROA classification and incorporated exclusions

Arizona and CROA both use § 501(c)(3) for their nonprofit exclusions. Their other exclusions differ materially: Arizona lists an in-scope Arizona attorney and real-estate broker; CROA does not. CROA expressly addresses a qualifying creditor restructuring its own debt and specified institutional affiliates; the Arizona list is not identical.

The institutional exemption text does not require every depository institution to satisfy a universal FDIC-insured condition; that would improperly replace the incorporated definition. Conversely, an unaffiliated contractor does not inherit the institution’s exclusion by describing itself as its service provider. uscode.house.gov+4

2.5 CROA performance, documents, cancellation, and remedies

The original federal enactment confirms that the cancellation wording discrepancy is not merely a recent website transcription issue. The statutory service-start restriction, cancellation right, required notice, payment restriction, and state refund duty remain separate tests. uscode.house.gov+6

2.6 Necessary TSR overlap

These federal predicates concern when payment may be requested or received, not merely whether the seller ultimately produces some useful work. ecfr.gov+5

2.7 Judicial construction and currentness claims

3. Published judicial interpretations actually read

All five decisions below are published opinions. No unpublished memorandum decision is used, so no memorandum’s citation eligibility is assumed. No full citator or all-subsequent-history certification was performed.

Direct opinion URLs are in the source register and claims C006, C077–C080. Quoted cases within these opinions were not treated as separately opened underlying authorities. law.justia.com+4

4. Complete source register

All accesses below occurred October 27, 2026, Pacific. “Fresh” means the identified body or portion was actually retrieved and read during this pass. Historical material was freshly accessed but remains historical. A single compilation or enactment keeps one ID despite multiple sections.

4.1 Arizona sources

4.2 Federal statutes and incorporated definitions

4.3 TSR, guidance, and federal opinions

4.4 Failed and partial retrieval register

These entries remain attached to their source IDs. They are not additional independent sources, and an error establishes only the result of that retrieval route.

No failed URL was used as proof that the law, form, or service does not exist. The unresolved routes were not pursued through APIs, hidden endpoints, authentication, or security workarounds.

5. Sixteen fictional classification and workflow postures

These are hypothetical fact patterns, not findings about a real person or business. “Potentially covered” means the identified predicate warrants examination; it does not decide all exclusions, jurisdiction, or currentness.

6. Four fully worked conditional models

Model 1 — Classification, state bond condition, and federal payment timing

Fictional inputs

• Buyer: natural person seeking personal-purpose credit from someone other than the service seller.
• Proposed service charge: $600.
• Initial service: assistance obtaining new credit; assume it is not solely the prohibited same-public-terms retail referral.
• Seller’s statutory preceding-twelve-month fees-charged base: $80,000.
• No customer payment has yet occurred.
• No actual credit report or customer information is used.

State classification and security calculation

1. If the service satisfies § 44-1701 and no exclusion applies, the Arizona CSO duties apply.
2. Unbonded seller, all services incomplete: the proposed advance charge/receipt is prohibited under C016.
3. Conditional bond calculation:Base F = $80,000.Percentage calculation = 0.05 × $80,000 = $4,000.Apply minimum: max($5,000, $4,000) = $5,000.Apply maximum: min($25,000, $5,000) = $5,000 required face amount.Units: U.S. dollars. No rounding required.
4. A correctly issued and filed $5,000 bond would address this state advance-payment condition only. It would not establish fee earning, complete disclosure, an exemption, or permission under another law.

Federal classification branch

• If the actual package makes no express or implied credit-improvement representation and supplies no repair advice/assistance, CROA coverage is not established merely from the Arizona new-credit branch.
• If the package adds an express/implied promise to improve the buyer’s credit, and the interstate/mails and consideration predicates exist, CROA must be applied. A state bond does not permit charging or receiving the $600 while that agreed service remains incomplete.
• If the sale also falls within a qualifying TSR telephone campaign, its credit-repair conditions apply. An inbound response to a repair advertisement is not automatically exempt.

TSR event model

Stipulate that all promised results were achieved January 15, 2026.

• Six-month calendar anniversary: July 15, 2026.
• Qualifying candidate report issued: August 3, 2026.
• Report provided to consumer: August 4, 2026.
• Report demonstrates all promised results; CRA/permissible-purpose requirements are stipulated for this fictional branch.
• August 3 is later than the six-month anniversary. No 180-day conversion is used.

Branch A — Report provision first

• Longest represented performance timeframe expires September 30, 2026.
• All agreed services are stipulated fully performed by that date.
• At an illustrative assessment on October 5, 2026, both TSR events have occurred: report provision on August 4 and timeframe expiry on September 30.
• That removes the particular timing impediments only if every other applicable predicate is satisfied. It is not a payment authorization.

Branch B — Timeframe expiry first

• Alternative represented timeframe expires March 31, 2026.
• All services are stipulated fully performed by that date.
• Report remains issued August 3 and provided August 4.
• At an illustrative assessment on August 10, 2026, both events have occurred, in the opposite order.

Adverse report branch

A report issued March 1, 2026, or exactly July 15, 2026, does not satisfy “issued more than six months after” the January 15 results date. Keeping it until October does not change its issuance date.

Ledger

• Customer receipts: $0.
• Lawfully applied fee established by this model: $0.
• Creditor payments: $0.
• Principal reduction: $0.
• Bond face amount: $5,000, separately identified; it is not a customer expense.

Authority: C002–C004, C016, C020–C022, C043, C052, C064–C071; A.R.S. §§ 44-1701, 44-1703, 44-1708(C); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679a–1679b; 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(2). Actual classification, report, marketing, and performance remain held.

Model 2 — Completed preliminary work versus an integrated unfinished package

Fictional inputs

One agreement promises:

• Education session: separately listed $150.
• Dispute assistance and follow-through: separately listed $450.
• Total package: $600.
• The same sales presentation promises later monitoring/results.
• The education session is delivered on February 10, 2026.
• The dispute work and promised follow-through remain incomplete.
• The applicable federal waiting period is stipulated to have already elapsed; its boundary is not calculated.
• No payment has been made.

Analysis

1. Arizona’s unbonded restriction addresses all agreed services. Delivering the session does not complete the integrated agreement.
2. CROA speaks of full performance of the agreed service. Gill rejects treating consultation/some preliminary work as sufficient where substantial promised services remain.
3. The $150 invoice line is evidence of pricing, not a binding legal determination that the promise is independent and complete.
4. A genuinely separate generic budgeting service could present different classification facts. This model does not establish that branch simply by severing an invoice.

Arithmetic and ledger

• Proposed preliminary charge: $150.
• Total promised package: $150 + $450 = $600.
• Remaining priced work: $450, plus any integrated nonseparately-priced promises.
• Customer receipts: $0.
• Established lawful fee application: $0.
• Creditor payments: $0.
• Customer principal reduction: $0.

Positive branch

If every agreed promise is actually completed, all applicable document/waiting conditions are satisfied, and no covered TSR timing condition remains, the identified full-performance bar may cease to prohibit payment. That still does not prove the amount is otherwise lawful or nonrefundable.

Adverse branch

If $150 had already been collected, the historical receipt would not establish that it was earned. It would require separate treatment under the payment prohibition, cancellation, contract validity, and remedy provisions. No automatic “25% completion = 25% lawful fee” rule exists in the cited authorities.

Authority: C016, C032, C052, C055–C060, C078. Gill, Discussion A; A.R.S. § 44-1703(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(b). No actual severability or earning determination.

Model 3 — Early written cancellation, actual receipt, and return of payment

This model deliberately uses nonboundary events.

Fictional events

• Monday, October 5, 2026: contract signed and transaction occurs on the same day.
• Tuesday, October 6: buyer mails a signed, dated written cancellation to the correct contractual address.
• Wednesday, October 7: CSO actually receives it.
• Tuesday, October 13: the full refund is actually credited back to the buyer.
• Historical amount paid under the contract: $480. Its original collection is not presumed lawful.

Trigger separation

• Cancellation transmission: October 6.
• Actual receipt, starting Arizona’s return obligation: October 7.
• Actual completed return: October 13.

Both transmission and receipt occur early enough that the example does not depend on resolving the third-day/business-day boundary or transaction-date/signature-date discrepancy.

Elapsed-time illustration

Counting elapsed calendar days after receipt:

• October 8 = day 1.
• October 9 = day 2.
• October 10 = day 3.
• October 11 = day 4.
• October 12 = day 5.
• October 13 = day 6.

This is an elapsed-time illustration, not a calculation of an actual legal last day. October 12’s holiday status does not need to decide this early-return example. No universal Saturday/Sunday exclusion is assumed.

Money reconciliation

• Receipt: $480.
• Actual return: $480.
• Remaining amount to return under the stipulated full-cancellation branch: $480 − $480 = $0.
• Creditor payments: $0.
• Principal reduction: $0.
• Rounding: none.

Adverse branches

• If only $180 was returned, the stipulated remaining amount is $480 − $180 = $300.
• Wrong address, unproved mailing, disputed receipt, a different signing/transaction date, or oral-only cancellation changes the evidentiary problem.
• CROA’s general notification wording and the prescribed written notice method are not silently collapsed into a universal rule invalidating every oral communication.
• The 15-day receipt-triggered return provision is Arizona’s; it is not imported into CROA as a federal general refund period.

Authority: C035–C037, C057–C058, C086–C087; A.R.S. § 44-1706(B); 15 U.S.C. § 1679e.

Model 4 — Customer money, disputed fee, creditor transfer, and provider security

Fictional customer ledger

Assume, for the first branch, all $1,000 was paid under the CSO contract:

Timely-cancellation branch

If § 44-1706(B)’s return obligation covers all $1,000:

• Required return base: $1,000.
• Return already made: $250.
• Remaining return obligation: $750.
• Cash remaining: $550.
• Difference requiring another source of funds: $200.

The actual creditor transfer does not automatically reduce the statutory return obligation. Its legal treatment requires the actual contract, allocation, applicable law, and authority resolving that issue.

Alternative allocation branch

If $200 were genuinely a separate payment outside the CSO contract’s payment base:

• Conditional contract-payment base: $800.
• Less actual refund: $250.
• Conditional remaining return: $550.

That alternative is not chosen merely because the seller calls $200 a pass-through. The missing legal/factual classification is explicit.

Principal accounting

• Creditor received: $200.
• Principal reduction proved: unknown.
• Let P be the portion lawfully allocated to principal. On the stipulated cash facts, 0 ≤ P ≤ $200.
• Interest, fees, and principal allocation are not invented.
• Provider receipts and its $150 fee claim do not themselves reduce the underlying debt.

Separate provider bond calculation

Stipulated statutory fees-charged base for contracts entered during the preceding twelve months:

• Nonoverlapping qualifying fee subtotal A: $300,000.
• Qualifying fee subtotal B: $100,000.
• F = $300,000 + $100,000 = $400,000.
• Cash receipts during that period: $350,000.
• Returns during that period: $10,000.

The statutory base is the stipulated fees charged, not automatically $350,000 or $340,000:

• 0.05 × $400,000 = $20,000.
• max($5,000, $20,000) = $20,000.
• min($25,000, $20,000) = $20,000 required bond face.

No CPI calculation or rounding is used. If the “fees charged” inputs actually contain customer creditor-payment money or wrongly classified charges, the calculation must be held and the base corrected.

Provider cost/security separation

• Public bond-copy filing charge described by the read guidance: $0 for that process.
• Actual surety premium: unknown variable Pₛ.
• Other government/business charges, if applicable: unknown G.
• Conditional expense expression: $0 + Pₛ + G.
• Bond penal sum: $20,000, not added as an expense.
• Collateral, if demanded by a surety: separate unknown asset/encumbrance K, not an assumed statutory customer charge.

Aggregate-claim boundary

If, solely hypothetically, $18,000 of the $20,000 aggregate surety capacity had already been validly exhausted:

• Remaining arithmetic capacity: $20,000 − $18,000 = $2,000.
• A later claimant with $3,000 of otherwise covered actual damages would face an arithmetic surety ceiling of min($3,000, $2,000) = $2,000.
• This does not establish priority, coverage, exhaustion, entitlement, payment, or the CSO’s separate liability.

Authority: C020–C027, C036, C040, C061, C089. A.R.S. § 44-1708(B)–(C) and § 44-1706(B). This ledger supplies no custody, collection, fee, or refund permission.

7. Granular coverage and remaining-evidence tables

Status key: Answered-text = applicable body rule read for the identified version. Partial = rule established but material application/currentness remains open. Held = missing operative body, authoritative construction, or facts. Deferred = separate required component.

7.1 Core, workflow, security, timing, and currentness coverage

7.2 Territory and local-practice holds

7.3 Separate required components

8. P01 contribution crosswalk and preservation of prior status

The complete raw P01 CSO/CROA rows and their row/claim identifiers were not supplied in this conversation. I preserve the exact labels supplied and identify their descriptions as user-provided provenance. I do not manufacture unavailable P01 IDs or claim a fresh opening of the coordinator review.

9. Researcher self-check — not independent review

Actually read

• All twelve Arizona CSO sections, the material linked Arizona reporting provisions, and the listed limited CFA provisions.
• Arizona general time/holiday/nonretroactivity text and the relevant constitutional effectiveness clause.
• Relevant 2023–2026 affected-statute index ranges, with their limited evidentiary role.
• Public ACA bond-copy instructions, ACC generic form lists and cover sheet, and the AG credit-repair guide.
• Complete CROA bodies in the readable OLRC October 7 release, the 2024 official fallback, and the original enacted CROA §§ 401–413.
• Material incorporated tax, creditor, institution, credit-union, report-purpose and FTC-jurisdiction definitions, to the exact scope recorded.
• Necessary TSR operative provisions, the pertinent original final-rule explanation, and the operative 2024 final amendments.
• The five published majority opinions identified above, to the recorded scope.

Not established or not fully read

• The original Arizona 1988 enactment, its precise commencement/transition, and a complete earlier amendment chain.
• A complete operative Arizona CSO rule/adoption/repeal inventory.
• A current authenticated CSO-specific bond instrument and its cancellation/claim riders.
• An authoritative Arizona construction that a concession alone is obtaining credit.
• A published reconciliation of every state/federal cancellation wording and boundary-day issue.
• Complete CROA updating after the readable October 7 release through the October 27 access date.
• Complete deeper institutional/sector crossreferences, current § 53, all FCRA requirements, and all subsequent judicial treatment.
• Any actual provider, buyer, tax status, license, contract, report, account, performance, receipt, refund, or security claim.

Verification discipline

• Search results and indexes were used for discovery or bounded amendment checks, not substituted for operative bodies.
• The two unofficial opinion hosts are disclosed; the holdings are separated from arguments and headnotes.
• AMG was read before relying on the old Gill remedy discussion; that old monetary route is not presented as current authority.
• No comparison jurisdiction or unpublished opinion was used to fill the concession or cancellation gaps.
• The four models keep customer receipts, claimed fees, established applications, refunds, creditor transfers, principal allocation, private premium and bond face amount separate.
• No state bond, disclosure, contract, arithmetic result, or completed preliminary task is treated as permission to request or receive payment under a separately applicable federal prohibition.
• Nothing here rewrites prior reports or provides independent-review, actual-actor, full-state, parent, A066, A097, or A098 acceptance.

END S_AZ PASS-08.