Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.182
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.182.150 (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 covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Violations of this chapter are not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business. A violation of this chapter is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. The burden of proof in an action alleging a violation of this chapter shall be by a preponderance of the evidence, and the applicable statute of limitation shall be as set forth in RCW 19.182.120. For purposes of a judgment awarded pursuant to an action by a consumer under chapter 19.86 RCW, the consumer shall be awarded actual damages and costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court. However, where there has been willful failure to comply with any requirement imposed under this chapter, the consumer shall be awarded actual damages, a monetary penalty of one thousand dollars, and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court.
[ 1993 c 476 s 17.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: Handlin v. On-Site Manager, Inc., 351 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Handlin v. On-Site Manager, Inc., 351 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “090; see also RCW 19.182.150. The complaint states the Handlins are entitled to damages and injunctive relief due to the “economic and non-economic injuries” they suffered “as a direct and proximate result” of On-Site’s violations of the Consumer Protection Act.”
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “, RCW 19.182.150 (declaring, as to Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act, that “the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act”), RCW 46.”
Hennessey v. Radius Global Solutions LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 3× “See Wash Rev. Code § 19.182.150; Cain v. Trans Union LLC, No.”
Brian & Karen Handlin v. On-site Manager, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “090: see also RCW 19.182.150. The complaint states the Handlins are entitled to damages and injunctive relief due to the "economic and non-economic injuries" they suffered "as a direct and proximate result" of On- Site's violations of the Consumer Protection Act.”
Leavitt v. Cent. Credit LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “5 “RCW 19.182.150 explicitly makes a violation of the WFCRA a violation of the 6 WCPA.”
Hennessey v. Pendrick Capital Partners LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “” RCW 19.182.150; see 20 Leavitt v. Credit Cent.”
On-site Manager, Inc. v. Brian & Karen Handlin (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" RCW 19.182.150. The court imposed statutory damages of $1,000 for each willful violation, totaling $6,000 (three violations against Karen and three against Brian).”
Jones-Adams v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “22 at 11) (see 25 also RCW 19.182.150) (explaining that a violation of state FCRA is a violation of the state CPA).”
Debra Stevens, Appellant/cr-respondent V. Craig Jonov, M.d., Respondent/cr-appellants (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “070, stating that it “provides, ‘[v]iolations of this chapter are not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business.’ ” However, this statute does not apply to her claim, as it appears in chapter 46.”
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.