CPA claim in Washington

2025The first two elements of a CPA claim “may be established by a showing that the alleged act constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 786 .

2025The first two elements of a CPA claim “may be established by a showing that the alleged act constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 786 .

2025Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 65 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff alleging deceptive collection methods under the CPA “need not remand payment to establish injury: other expenses incurred as a result of the deceptive practice may satisfy the injury element”). 12 86812-8/13 defined under RCW 19.86.090 where there has been no adjudication of the CPA claim. 16 See Roemmich v. 3M Co., 21 Wn.

2025Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 65 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff alleging deceptive collection methods under the CPA “need not remand payment to establish injury: other expenses incurred as a result of the deceptive practice may satisfy the injury element”). 12 86812-8/13 defined under RCW 19.86.090 where there has been no adjudication of the CPA claim. 16 See Roemmich v. 3M Co., 21 Wn.

2016Id. 9 No. 741 33-1-1/10 interest, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) a causal link between the unfair or deceptive act complained of and the injury suffered.”35 The failure to establish even one of these elements is fatal to a CPA claim.36 Whether a particular action gives rise to a CPA violation is reviewable as a question of law.37 Nilsen offers several arguments why his CPA claim should have survived summary judgment, but his core premise is that Nationstar lacked authority to initiate foreclosure because it was not the owner of his note.

2016Id. 9 No. 741 33-1-1/10 interest, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) a causal link between the unfair or deceptive act complained of and the injury suffered.”35 The failure to establish even one of these elements is fatal to a CPA claim.36 Whether a particular action gives rise to a CPA violation is reviewable as a question of law.37 Nilsen offers several arguments why his CPA claim should have survived summary judgment, but his core premise is that Nationstar lacked authority to initiate foreclosure because it was not the owner of his note.

2009Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 313 . 9 ¶36 The dissent takes the fact that the physician was a learned intermediary to whom the duty to warn ran and the fact that we held the physician did not lack standing to bring a CPA claim because he was not a consumer, and turns the Fisons analysis into a requirement that the “learned intermediary” status of the physician constitutes one of a narrow class of special relationships that qualify an individual to bring suit.

2009Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 313 . 9 ¶36 The dissent takes the fact that the physician was a learned intermediary to whom the duty to warn ran and the fact that we held the physician did not lack standing to bring a CPA claim because he was not a consumer, and turns the Fisons analysis into a requirement that the “learned intermediary” status of the physician constitutes one of a narrow class of special relationships that qualify an individual to bring suit.

2023And to prevail on a CPA claim, the plaintiff must show injury to their “business or property.” Id.

2023And to prevail on a CPA claim, the plaintiff must show injury to their “business or property.” Id.

2026In affirming dismissal, our decision relied on these findings. 11 Montes v. SPARC Group LLC, No. 104162-4 (Stephens, C.J., dissenting) of the required elements of a CPA claim, these elements “should not be read in isolation so as to render absurd conclusions.” Ambach, 167 Wn.2d at 178 .

2026In affirming dismissal, our decision relied on these findings. 11 Montes v. SPARC Group LLC, No. 104162-4 (Stephens, C.J., dissenting) of the required elements of a CPA claim, these elements “should not be read in isolation so as to render absurd conclusions.” Ambach, 167 Wn.2d at 178 .

2024Similarly, in Trujillo, the issue was whether an alleged violation of the deeds of trust act was sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ CPA claim. 183 Wn.2d at 827, 834-35 .

2024Similarly, in Trujillo, the issue was whether an alleged violation of the deeds of trust act was sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ CPA claim. 183 Wn.2d at 827, 834-35 .

2024And finally, in his CPA claim, Caneer alleged the Grocers engaged in “unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices by collecting sales tax on food items that are exempt from sales tax,” claiming injury in the form of paying the unnecessary tax.6 5 Caneer asserts hypothetically that the Grocers could be profiting from their scheme by “earning interest from holding the improperly collected sales tax for a time before remitting it to the [DOR] or using it to offset what [the Grocers] owed to the [DOR] for [business and occupation] tax purposes.” Nonetheless, Caneer’s claim turns on the propriety of

2021To establish the causation element of a CPA claim, “[a] plaintiff must establish that, but for the defendant’s unfair or deceptive practice, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury.” Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 83 , 170 P.3d 10 (2007).

2026Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771, 787 , 295 P.3d 1179 (2013).

2026Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771, 787 , 295 P.3d 1179 (2013).

2024Lyons v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 181 Wn.2d 775, 785 , 336 P.3d 1142 (2014).

2015See Lyons, 181 Wn.2d at 785 . ¶29 To satisfy the second and third elements of her CPA claim — that NWTS’s acts occurred in trade or commerce and that they affected the public interest — Trujillo alleges, “Wells [Fargo] makes these unfounded claims to foreclose on defaulting borrowers as a routine part of its foreclosure activities on behalf of Fannie Mae.

2018On August 30, 2013, the superior court granted summary judgment dismissal of the CPA claim against MERS. 13 175 Wn.2d 83, 90 , 285 P.3d 34 (2012). 14 Id. at 98-110 . 15 Id. at 119-20 . 5 No. 75946-9-1/6 DECISION We review an order granting summary judgment de novo.16 Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.17 The CPA prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practic

2018On August 30, 2013, the superior court granted summary judgment dismissal of the CPA claim against MERS. 13 175 Wn.2d 83, 90 , 285 P.3d 34 (2012). 14 Id. at 98-110 . 15 Id. at 119-20 . 5 No. 75946-9-1/6 DECISION We review an order granting summary judgment de novo.16 Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.17 The CPA prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practic

2017Inc., 111 Wn.2d 396, 406-07 , 759 P.2d 418 (1988) (sellers practices, which were custom and usage in the trade, led to sale of unsound horses and thus were sufficient to 7 GEICO contends that the University did not present specific evidence that GEICO's acts or omissions affected policyholders, that GEICO did not have enough time for effective discovery, and that the University asserted a basis for its CPA claim In its opening statement that it did not later support at trial.

2017Inc., 111 Wn.2d 396, 406-07 , 759 P.2d 418 (1988) (sellers practices, which were custom and usage in the trade, led to sale of unsound horses and thus were sufficient to 7 GEICO contends that the University did not present specific evidence that GEICO's acts or omissions affected policyholders, that GEICO did not have enough time for effective discovery, and that the University asserted a basis for its CPA claim In its opening statement that it did not later support at trial.

2009App. 105 , 796 P.2d 426 (1990) (affirming dismissal of CPA claim predicated on allegedly defamatory remarks made by adverse party’s attorney); Stevens v. Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc., 54 Wn.

2009See, e.g., Demopolis v. Peoples Nat'l Bank of Wash., 59 Wash.App. 105 , 796 P.2d 426 (1990) (affirming dismissal of CPA claim predicated on allegedly defamatory remarks made by adverse party's attorney); Stevens v. Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc., 54 Wash.App. 366 , 773 P.2d 871 (1989) (affirming dismissal of CPA claim against shoe salesman for personal injuries suffered during a baseball game due to allegedly defective shoes). [6] As discussed in Green , the insurance code imposes a statutory duty of good faith on "the insurer, the insured, their providers, and their representatives." RCW 48.01.03

2001On review, we concluded that there was no supportable informed consent claim, no showing of an improper entrepreneurial motive, and no showing of a resulting injury: "To maintain a CPA claim there must be a showing of a lack of informed consent resulting from dishonest and unfair practices motivated by financial gain." Benoy, 66 Wash.App. at 65 , 831 P.2d 167 (citing Quimby, 45 Wash. App. 175 , 724 P.2d 403 ).

2001On review, we concluded that there was no supportable informed consent claim, no showing of an improper entrepreneurial motive, and no showing of a resulting injury: "To maintain a CPA claim there must be a showing of a lack of informed consent resulting from dishonest and unfair practices motivated by financial gain." Benoy, 66 Wash.App. at 65 , 831 P.2d 167 (citing Quimby, 45 Wash. App. 175 , 724 P.2d 403 ).

2025Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 65 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff alleging deceptive collection methods under the CPA “need not remand payment to establish injury: other expenses incurred as a result of the deceptive practice may satisfy the injury element”). 12 86812-8/13 defined under RCW 19.86.090 where there has been no adjudication of the CPA claim. 16 See Roemmich v. 3M Co., 21 Wn.

2025Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 65 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff alleging deceptive collection methods under the CPA “need not remand payment to establish injury: other expenses incurred as a result of the deceptive practice may satisfy the injury element”). 12 86812-8/13 defined under RCW 19.86.090 where there has been no adjudication of the CPA claim. 16 See Roemmich v. 3M Co., 21 Wn.

2024And finally, in his CPA claim, Caneer alleged the Grocers engaged in “unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices by collecting sales tax on food items that are exempt from sales tax,” claiming injury in the form of paying the unnecessary tax.6 5 Caneer asserts hypothetically that the Grocers could be profiting from their scheme by “earning interest from holding the improperly collected sales tax for a time before remitting it to the [DOR] or using it to offset what [the Grocers] owed to the [DOR] for [business and occupation] tax purposes.” Nonetheless, Caneer’s claim turns on the propriety of

2021To establish the causation element of a CPA claim, “[a] plaintiff must establish that, but for the defendant’s unfair or deceptive practice, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury.” Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 83 , 170 P.3d 10 (2007).

2024Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 37 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009). -5- No. 84141-6-I/6 “Failure to satisfy even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim.” Sorrel v. Eagle Healthcare, Inc., 110 Wn.

2024Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 37 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009). -5- No. 84141-6-I/6 “Failure to satisfy even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim.” Sorrel v. Eagle Healthcare, Inc., 110 Wn.

2008Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483 , 859 P.2d 26 , 865 P.2d 507 (1993) (trial court erred by failing to segregate where plaintiff prevailed on one of four claims); Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wn.2d 735, 744 , 733 P.2d 208 (1987) (CPA (Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW) plaintiff not entitled to attorney fees for aspects of suit unrelated to CPA violation); Sing v. John L.

2008Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483 , 859 P.2d 26 , 865 P.2d 507 (1993) (trial court erred by failing to segregate where plaintiff prevailed on one of four claims); Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wn.2d 735, 744 , 733 P.2d 208 (1987) (CPA (Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW) plaintiff not entitled to attorney fees for aspects of suit unrelated to CPA violation); Sing v. John L.

2015App. 290, 298 , 38 P.3d 1024 (2002) ("Failure to establish even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim."). 50 RCW 9A.82.045. 12 No. 70706-0-1/13 To avoid summary judgment, Bowman would have had to show that he could prove, among other things, "an act of criminal profiteering that is part of a pattern of criminal profiteering activity."51 "Criminal profiteering" is "any act, including any anticipatory or completed offense, committed for financial gain, that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of the state in which the act occurred."52 Bowman fails to identify any act by the responde

2015App. 290, 298 , 38 P.3d 1024 (2002) ("Failure to establish even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim."). 50 RCW 9A.82.045. 12 No. 70706-0-1/13 To avoid summary judgment, Bowman would have had to show that he could prove, among other things, "an act of criminal profiteering that is part of a pattern of criminal profiteering activity."51 "Criminal profiteering" is "any act, including any anticipatory or completed offense, committed for financial gain, that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of the state in which the act occurred."52 Bowman fails to identify any act by the responde

2026Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976).

2026Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976).