Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.28.080 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) By contract a debt adjuster may charge a reasonable fee for debt adjusting services. The total fee for debt adjusting services, including, but not limited to, any fee charged by a financial institution or a third-party account administrator, may not exceed fifteen percent of the total debt listed by the debtor on the contract. The fee retained by the debt adjuster from any one payment made by or on behalf of the debtor may not exceed fifteen percent of the payment not including fair share contributions to a nonprofit debt adjuster. The debt adjuster may make an initial charge of up to twenty-five dollars which shall be considered part of the total fee. If an initial charge is made, no additional fee may be retained which will bring the total fee retained to date to more than fifteen percent of the total payments made to date. No fee whatsoever shall be applied against rent and utility payments for housing.
In the event of cancellation or default on performance of the contract by the debtor prior to its successful completion, the debt adjuster may collect in addition to fees previously received, six percent of that portion of the remaining indebtedness listed on said contract which was due when the contract was entered into, but not to exceed twenty-five dollars.
(2) A debt adjuster shall not be entitled to retain any fee until notifying all creditors listed by the debtor that the debtor has engaged the debt adjuster in a program of debt adjusting.
(3) The department of financial institutions has authority to enforce compliance with this section.
[ 2015 c 167 s 2; 2012 c 56 s 2; 1999 c 151 s 102; 1979 c 156 s 4; 1967 ex.s. c 141 s 2; 1967 c 201 s 8.]

Notes:

Information—Report—2012 c 56: See note following RCW 19.230.350.
Part headings not law—Effective date—1999 c 151: See notes following RCW 18.28.010.
Effective date—Severability—1979 c 156: See notes following RCW 18.28.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2011–2018 · leading case: Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 486 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 486 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “3: Do the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080 apply to for-profit debt settlement companies engaged in soliciting the participation of debtors in a debt management program involving: a) monthly set aside and accumulation of a debtor’s funds in a custodial account for the…”
Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 256 P.3d 321 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “3: Do the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080 apply to for-profit debt settlement companies engaged in soliciting the participation of debtors in a debt management program involving: a) monthly set aside and accumulation of a debtor's funds in a custodial account for the…”
Brown v. Consum. Law Assocs., LLC, 283 F.R.D. 602 (E.D. Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “RCW 18.28.080. Although the DAA’s regulations are broad in scope, they are statutorily circumscribed to “debt adjusters” engaged in the business of “debt adjusting.”
John Kihuria v. Consum. Legal Servs. Am., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Here, the class alleged that CLSA violated the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080. The class based its claims on the members'individual contracts with CLSA,and Kihuria's contract was typical of those of the other class members.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.28.080(1) — 4 cases
Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 486 (Wash. 2011). “3: Do the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080 apply to for-profit debt settlement companies engaged in soliciting the participation of debtors in a debt management program involving: a) monthly set aside and accumulation of a debtor’s funds in a custodial account for the…”
Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 256 P.3d 321 (Wash. 2011). “3: Do the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080 apply to for-profit debt settlement companies engaged in soliciting the participation of debtors in a debt management program involving: a) monthly set aside and accumulation of a debtor's funds in a custodial account for the…”
Brown v. Consum. Law Assocs., LLC, 283 F.R.D. 602 (E.D. Wash. 2012). “RCW 18.28.080. Although the DAA’s regulations are broad in scope, they are statutorily circumscribed to “debt adjusters” engaged in the business of “debt adjusting.”
John Kihuria v. Consum. Legal Servs. Am., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Here, the class alleged that CLSA violated the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080. The class based its claims on the members'individual contracts with CLSA,and Kihuria's contract was typical of those of the other class members.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.