Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.190
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020 (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 2274-S.SL) ***
(1) No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:
(a) Uses a third party's internet domain name without permission of the third party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail message; or
(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.
(2) For purposes of this section, a person knows that the intended recipient of a commercial electronic mail message is a Washington resident if that information is available, upon request, from the registrant of the internet domain name contained in the recipient's electronic mail address.
[ 1999 c 289 s 2; 1998 c 149 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.020. The statute also prohibits certain practices aimed at inducing a person to reveal personally identifying information.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “” RCW 19.190.020. The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General’s Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “" RCW 19.190.020. [7] The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General's Office is illustrative.”
Gordon v. Impulse Mktg. Grp., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (E.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 22× “RCW § 19.190.020. Defendant contends the CAN-SPAM Act preempts the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act because that statute also regulates unsolicited commercial email.”
State v. Heckel, 93 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
Benson v. Oregon Processing Serv., Inc., 150 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 9× “Martin for allegedly violating RCW 19.190.020(1)(a), which prohibits commercial e-mail senders from sending Washington residents commercial e-mail that misrepresents or obscures information identifying the e-mail message's point of origin or transmission path.”
State v. Heckel, 122 Wash. App. 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
Benson v. Oregon Processing Serv., Inc., 136 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Martin for allegedly violating RCW 19.190.020(l)(a), which prohibits commercial e-mail senders from sending Washington residents com *589 mercial e-mail that misrepresents or obscures information identifying the e-mail message’s point of origin or transmission path.”
MARYCLE, LLC. v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 890 A.2d 818 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006). “See Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.020(1). *521 With respect to the balancing part of the Pike test, the Washington court determined that the “local benefits surpass any alleged burden on interstate commerce[.”
Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D. Maryland 2006). “(2) For purposes of this section, a person knows that the intended recipient of a commercial electronic mail message is a Washington resident if that information is available, upon request, from the registrant of the Internet domain name contained in the recipient’s electronic…”
In Re OptInRealBig. Com, LLC, 345 B.R. 277 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2006). “” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020 . The California statute is more broadly written to target “unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements,” Cal.”
Brown v. Old Navy, LLC (Wash. 2025). · cites it 38× “102592-1 its use in RCW 19.190.020 means that this statute applies only to commercial e- mails.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(1) — 8 cases
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “” RCW 19.190.020. The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General’s Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 19.190.020. [7] The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General's Office is illustrative.”
MARYCLE, LLC. v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 890 A.2d 818 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006). “See Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.020(1). *521 With respect to the balancing part of the Pike test, the Washington court determined that the “local benefits surpass any alleged burden on interstate commerce[.”
Gordon v. Impulse Mktg. Grp., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (E.D. Wash. 2005). “RCW § 19.190.020. Defendant contends the CAN-SPAM Act preempts the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act because that statute also regulates unsolicited commercial email.”
Brown v. Old Navy, LLC (Wash. 2025). “102592-1 its use in RCW 19.190.020 means that this statute applies only to commercial e- mails.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(1)(a) — 6 cases
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). “Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.020. The statute also prohibits certain practices aimed at inducing a person to reveal personally identifying information.”
Benson v. Oregon Processing Serv., Inc., 150 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Martin for allegedly violating RCW 19.190.020(1)(a), which prohibits commercial e-mail senders from sending Washington residents commercial e-mail that misrepresents or obscures information identifying the e-mail message's point of origin or transmission path.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “” RCW 19.190.020. The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General’s Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 19.190.020. [7] The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General's Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 93 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(1)(b) — 13 cases
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “” RCW 19.190.020. The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General’s Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 19.190.020. [7] The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General's Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 93 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
Brown v. Old Navy, LLC (Wash. 2025). “102592-1 its use in RCW 19.190.020 means that this statute applies only to commercial e- mails.”
Harbers v. Eddie Bauer LLC (W.D. Wash. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(2) — 5 cases
State v. Heckel, 93 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
State v. Heckel, 122 Wash. App. 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “” RCW 19.190.020. The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General’s Office is illustrative.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 19.190.020. [7] The experience of 1 of the 17 complainants to the Attorney General's Office is illustrative.”
Gordon v. Impulse Mktg. Grp., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (E.D. Wash. 2005). “RCW § 19.190.020. Defendant contends the CAN-SPAM Act preempts the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act because that statute also regulates unsolicited commercial email.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(l)(a) — 3 cases
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). “Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.020. The statute also prohibits certain practices aimed at inducing a person to reveal personally identifying information.”
Benson v. Oregon Processing Serv., Inc., 136 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Martin for allegedly violating RCW 19.190.020(l)(a), which prohibits commercial e-mail senders from sending Washington residents com *589 mercial e-mail that misrepresents or obscures information identifying the e-mail message’s point of origin or transmission path.”
State v. Heckel, 122 Wash. App. 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated RCW 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Heckel, 122 Wash. App. 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 19.190.020 (emphasis ours). Heckel does not deny that he violated 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.