Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.146
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.146.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that the practices governed by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Any violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and unfair method of competition in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of RCW 19.86.020. Remedies provided by chapter 19.86 RCW are cumulative and not exclusive.
[ 1994 c 33 s 25; 1987 c 391 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: State v. WWJ Corp., 980 P.2d 1257 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. WWJ Corp., 980 P.2d 1257 (Wash. 1999). “" RCW 19.146.100. The Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.”
State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wash. 2d 595 (Wash. 1999). “” RCW 19.146.100. The Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.”
Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “036 (usury); RCW 19.146.100 (MBPA). To prevail on a CPA claim, the plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in trade or commerce, (3) that impacts the public interest, (4) the plaintiff has suffered injury in his…”
Brazier v. Sec. Pac. Mortg., Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (W.D. Wash. 2003). “RCW 19.146.100. Thus, the Court finds that the inadequate disclosures in the October 5, 2001 signed good faith estimate violated the Washington MBPA and CPA.”
Pierce v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (W.D. Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “; RCW 19.146.100. The Washington Legislature specifically addressed this issue under RCW 19.”
State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 143 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “"); RCW 19.146.100 (a violation of the Mortgage Brokers Practices Act is a CPA violation); RCW 19.”
State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act”); RCW 19.146.100 (a violation of the mortgage brokers practices act is a CPA violation); RCW 19.”
State v. WWJ Corp., 941 P.2d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “See RCW 19.146.100, 19.86.020, 19.86.140. Generally, violations of the Mortgage Broker Practices Act are misdemeanors; however, violations of the trust account provisions are class C felonies.”
Naseth v. Acoustic Home Loans, LLC, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D. Wash. 2010). “RCW 19.146.100. A. Violations Arising From the June 30 Disclosures When Ms.”
Trang Huynh Nguyen, V. Becky Hoang, Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 19.146.100. The trial court did not err in concluding that Hoang’s actions violated the MBPA, and thus the CPA.”
Deborah Rodriguez v. Am. One Fin., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “0201 declares that it is a violation of the MBPA for a licensed loan originator or mortgage broker, "in connection with a residential mortgage loan," to (1) Directly or indirectly employ any scheme, device, or artifice to defraud or mislead borrowers or lenders or to defraud any…”
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.