Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.260 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5720-S.SL) ***
(1)(a) No collection agency or out-of-state collection agency may bring or maintain an action in any court of this state involving the collection of its own claim or a claim of any third party without alleging and proving that he, she, or it is duly licensed under this chapter and has satisfied the bonding requirements hereof, if applicable: PROVIDED, That in any case where judgment is to be entered by default, it shall not be necessary for the collection agency or out-of-state collection agency to prove such matters.
(b) A copy of the current collection agency license or out-of-state collection agency license, certified by the director to be a true and correct copy of the original, shall be prima facie evidence of the licensing and bonding of such collection agency or out-of-state collection agency as required by this chapter.
(2) No debt buyer may:
(a) Bring any legal action against a debtor without attaching to the complaint a copy of the contract or other writing evidencing the original debt that contains the signature of the debtor, or:
(i) If a claim is based on a credit card debt for which a signed writing evidencing the original debt does not exist, a copy of the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, payment, or other extension of credit and, if the claim is based on a breach of contract, a copy of the terms and conditions in place at the time of the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, payment, or extension of credit must also be attached; or
(ii) If a claim is based on an electronic transaction for which a signed writing evidencing the original debt never existed, a copy of the records created during the transaction evidencing the debtor's agreement to the debt and recording the date and terms of the transaction and information provided by the debtor during the transaction.
(b) Request a default judgment against a debtor in any legal action without providing to the court evidence that satisfies the requirements of rule 803(a)(6) of the rules of evidence and RCW 5.45.020 or is otherwise authorized by law or rule that establishes the amount and nature of the debt, including the documents required by (a) of this subsection, and:
(i) The original account number at charge-off;
(ii) The original creditor at charge-off;
(iii) The amount due at charge-off or, if the balance has not been charged off, an itemization of the amount claimed to be owed, including the principal, interest, fees, and other charges or reductions from payment made or other credits;
(iv) An itemization of post charge-off additions, if any;
(v) The date of the last payment, if applicable, or the date of the last transaction;
(vi) If the account is not a revolving credit account, the date the debt was incurred; and
(vii) A copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt. If the debt was assigned more than once, each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must be attached to establish an unbroken chain of ownership, beginning with the original creditor to the first debt buyer and each subsequent sale.
(c) Bring any legal action against a debtor without providing a disclosure in the complaint, in no smaller than ten point type, stating each of the following:
(i) That the action is being brought by, or for the benefit of, a person or entity that is engaged in the business of purchasing delinquent or charged off claims for collection purposes;
(ii) The date the claim or obligation was purchased;
(iii) The identity of the person or entity from whom or which the claim or obligation was purchased;
(iv) That the plaintiff may have purchased this claim or obligation for less than the value stated in the complaint;
(v) If the claim or obligation was at any time sold without any representation or warranty of accuracy, a statement to that effect; and
(vi) That the action is being commenced within, and is not barred by, an applicable statute of limitations.
[ 2020 c 30 s 2; 2013 c 148 s 3; 2011 c 336 s 521; 1994 c 195 s 8; 1971 ex.s. c 253 s 17.]

Notes:

Application2020 c 30: See note following RCW 19.16.100.
Effective date2013 c 148 ss 1 and 3: See note following RCW 19.16.100.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 334 P.3d 14 (Wash. 2014).
Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 334 P.3d 14 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 5× “RCW 19.16.260, regarding licensing prerequisites to collection lawsuits, was amended in 2013 to require collections agencies that file lawsuits to collect their own claims to allege and prove that they are licensed.”
Moritz v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2012). · cites it 7× “250(8), and RCW 19.16.260. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 96, 101, 103, 105.”
Paris v. Steinberg & Steinberg, 828 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “110 and RCW 19.16.260 of the WCAA. Defendants argue the claims fail because there is no private right of action under either provision.”
Mandelas v. Daniel N. Gordon, PC, 785 F. Supp. 2d 951 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “110 and RCW 19.16.260. Mr. Mandelas’s WCPA claims are based on the same alleged violations of the WCAA.”
Trust Fund Servs. v. Aro Glass Co., 575 P.2d 716 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “100 and that therefore, under RCW 19.16.260, a license was a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.”
Floyd Scott, V. Am. Express Nat'l Bank (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 18× “Specifically, Scott alleged that (1) defendants violated the CPA by (a) failing to allege or prove that they were duly licensed and bonded under RCW 19.16.260, (b) failing to contact Scott prior to serving the summons and complaint, (c) failing to incorporate the RCW 19.”
Preston v. SB&C Ltd (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 8× “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.260 (2)). In the 24 state collection action, SB&C moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted.”
Audit & Adjustment Co. v. Earl, 267 P.3d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Earl argues that (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over charity care eligibility; (2) Audit failed to prove it had standing under RCW 19.16.260 and .270 to maintain a collection suit against him; (3) the district court erred in admitting certain documents…”
Audit & Adjustment Co. v. Earl, 165 Wash. App. 497 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Earl argues that (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over charity care eligibility, (2) Audit failed to prove it had standing under RCW 19.16.260 and .270 to maintain a collection suit against him, (3) the district court erred in admitting certain documents…”
Gray v. Suttell & Assocs. (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “110 claim valid but the RCW 19.16.260 invalid because no evidence defendant violated RCW 19.”
Preston v. SB&C Ltd (W.D. Wash. 2025). “5 Preston’s claims based on Sections 19.16.260(2) and 19.16.250(29) of the Revised Code 6 of Washington are dismissed without prejudice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.260(1)(a) — 1 case
Floyd Scott, V. Am. Express Nat'l Bank (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Specifically, Scott alleged that (1) defendants violated the CPA by (a) failing to allege or prove that they were duly licensed and bonded under RCW 19.16.260, (b) failing to contact Scott prior to serving the summons and complaint, (c) failing to incorporate the RCW 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.260(2) — 2 cases
Preston v. SB&C Ltd (W.D. Wash. 2025). “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.260 (2)). In the 24 state collection action, SB&C moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted.”
Preston v. SB&C Ltd (W.D. Wash. 2025). “5 Preston’s claims based on Sections 19.16.260(2) and 19.16.250(29) of the Revised Code 6 of Washington are dismissed without prejudice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.260(2)(a) — 1 case
Floyd Scott, V. Am. Express Nat'l Bank (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Specifically, Scott alleged that (1) defendants violated the CPA by (a) failing to allege or prove that they were duly licensed and bonded under RCW 19.16.260, (b) failing to contact Scott prior to serving the summons and complaint, (c) failing to incorporate the RCW 19.”
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.