The Court of Appeals held that summary judgment against Challenge was not proper. Summary judgment is proper only when there is no questing of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Challenge had presented substantial evidence that the company did not require or pressure sales personnel to purchase the company's programs for personal use. This conflicted with evidence that the State put on contending that Challenge required each sales person to purchase the program before they would be authorized to sell it to others. Since this evidence was conflicting, and it was material to the issues in the complaint, summary judgment was improper in this instance and trial court ruling was reversed.

http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Arizona_v_Challenge.php