Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.100
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.190 (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) The commission of any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition prohibited by RCW 19.100.180 as now or hereafter amended shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the provisions of chapter 19.86 RCW.
(2) Any person who sells or offers to sell a franchise in violation of this chapter shall be liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor who may sue at law or in equity for damages caused thereby for rescission or other relief as the court may deem appropriate. In the case of a violation of RCW 19.100.170 rescission is not available to the plaintiff if the defendant proves that the plaintiff knew the facts concerning the untruth or omission or that the defendant exercised reasonable care and did not know or if he or she had exercised reasonable care would not have known of the untruth or omission.
(3) The suit authorized under subsection (2) of this section may be brought to recover the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff and the court may in its discretion increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained: PROVIDED, That the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court recover the costs of said action including a reasonable attorneys' fee.
(4) Any person who becomes liable to make payments under this section may recover contributions as in cases of contracts from any persons who, if sued separately, would have been liable to make the same payment.
(5) A final judgment, order, or decree heretofore or hereafter rendered against a person in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings under the United States anti-trust laws, under the federal trade commission act, under the Washington state consumer protection act, or this chapter shall be regarded as evidence against such persons in any action brought by any party against such person under subsections (1) and (2) of this section as to all matters which said judgment or decree would be an estoppel between the parties thereto.
[ 2011 c 336 s 563; 1972 ex.s. c 116 s 11; 1971 ex.s. c 252 s 19.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 6× “Under FIPA, “[t]he commission of any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition prohibited by RCW 19.”
Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Draayer, 716 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 11× “RCW 19.100.190 provides, in part: Unfair or deceptive acts—Suits for damages—Violations of other acts, use in evidence.”
Morris v. Int'l Yogurt Co., 729 P.2d 33 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 3× “As for damages, RCW 19.100.190(2) states that the franchisee may sue a person who sells a franchise in violation of FIPA "for damages caused thereby".”
Morris v. Int'l Yogurt Co., 703 P.2d 318 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 9× “In fact, the lawsuit was based partly upon allegations that IYC had failed to provide the help and training it had promised.”
Allison v. Medicab Int'l, Inc., 597 P.2d 380 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “020) or is exempt from regulation. RCW 19.100.030.”
Huebner v. Sales Promotion, Inc., 684 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.100.190 provides in part: (2) Any person who sells or offers to sell a franchise in violation of this chapter shall be liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor who may sue at law or in equity for damages caused thereby for rescission or other relief as the court may deem…”
JM Vidal, Inc. v. Texdis USA, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “However, both claims will proceed, since the WFIPA claim (but not the implied contract claim) allows for the potential recovery of treble actual damages, see Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.190 . Accordingly, the Court denies Texdis’ motion for summary judgment on JMV’s claim for…”
Nelson v. Nat'l Fund Raising Consultants, Inc., 842 P.2d 473 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 19.100.190(1) provides: The commission of any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition prohibited by RCW 19.”
Rutter v. BX of Tri-Cities, Inc., 806 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 19.100.190, characterizing the practices prohibited by RCW 19.”
Chico's Pizza Franchises, Inc. v. Sisemore, 544 F. Supp. 248 (E.D. Wash. 1981). “See RCW 19.100.190. Treating the relevant portions of the pleadings as true, the conclusion is inescapable that FIPA profoundly altered, to the point of potential obliteration, the reasonable expectations of the parties.”
Bretford Mfg., Inc. v. Smith Sys. Mfg. Co., 116 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2000). “50 and the Washington Consumer Practices Act, RCW § 19.100.190. We determined at a Rule 16 conference on July 21, 1998 that “there is a very substantial issue as to likelihood of confusion,” at least with respect to the trade dress infringement claims.”
Brader v. Minute Muffler Installation, Ltd., 914 P.2d 1220 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “We note that business losses might otherwise be recoverable as consequential damages under the "other relief” provision of RCW 19.100.190(2). We need not reach that issue in the present case, however, as Brader failed to provide evidence distinguishing between damages incurred…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.190(1) — 8 cases
Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2013). “Under FIPA, “[t]he commission of any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition prohibited by RCW 19.”
Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Draayer, 716 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 19.100.190 provides, in part: Unfair or deceptive acts—Suits for damages—Violations of other acts, use in evidence.”
Nelson v. Nat'l Fund Raising Consultants, Inc., 842 P.2d 473 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 19.100.190(1) provides: The commission of any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition prohibited by RCW 19.”
Nelson v. Nat'l Fund Raising Consultants, Inc., 823 P.2d 1165 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Noble Roman's, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 307 F. Supp. 3d 907 (2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.190(2) — 4 cases
Morris v. Int'l Yogurt Co., 729 P.2d 33 (Wash. 1986). “As for damages, RCW 19.100.190(2) states that the franchisee may sue a person who sells a franchise in violation of FIPA "for damages caused thereby".”
Morris v. Int'l Yogurt Co., 703 P.2d 318 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “In fact, the lawsuit was based partly upon allegations that IYC had failed to provide the help and training it had promised.”
Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Draayer, 716 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 19.100.190 provides, in part: Unfair or deceptive acts—Suits for damages—Violations of other acts, use in evidence.”
Brader v. Minute Muffler Installation, Ltd., 914 P.2d 1220 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “We note that business losses might otherwise be recoverable as consequential damages under the "other relief” provision of RCW 19.100.190(2). We need not reach that issue in the present case, however, as Brader failed to provide evidence distinguishing between damages incurred…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.190(3) — 6 cases
Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 2013). “Under FIPA, “[t]he commission of any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition prohibited by RCW 19.”
Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Draayer, 716 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 19.100.190 provides, in part: Unfair or deceptive acts—Suits for damages—Violations of other acts, use in evidence.”
Morris v. Int'l Yogurt Co., 703 P.2d 318 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “In fact, the lawsuit was based partly upon allegations that IYC had failed to provide the help and training it had promised.”
Huebner v. Sales Promotion, Inc., 684 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “RCW 19.100.190 provides in part: (2) Any person who sells or offers to sell a franchise in violation of this chapter shall be liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor who may sue at law or in equity for damages caused thereby for rescission or other relief as the court may deem…”
Noble Roman's, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 307 F. Supp. 3d 907 (2018).
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.