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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030 (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) It is a violation of the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW, to conspire with another person to initiate the transmission or to initiate the transmission of a commercial electronic mail message 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) It is a violation of the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW, to assist in the transmission of a commercial electronic mail message, when the person providing the assistance knows, or consciously avoids knowing, that the initiator of the commercial electronic mail message is engaged, or intends to engage, in any act or practice that violates the consumer protection act.
(3) 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. A violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and 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.
[ 1999 c 289 s 3; 1998 c 149 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (8 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 8× “[25] See Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030 ; Heckel I, 24 P.”
Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 295 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2013). “For example, RCW 19.190.030 makes it a per se violation of the CPA to violate our state’s commercial electronic mail act, chapter 19.”
Gordon v. Impulse Mktg. Grp., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (E.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 6× “Although Plaintiffs Complaint also alleges a claim under RCW § 19.190.030 and Washington's CPA, the only issue with respect to the application of Rule 9(b) is whether a claim for a violation of RCW § 19.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “6 RCW 19.190.030 makes a violation of the Act a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.”
State v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “[6] RCW 19.190.030 makes a violation of the Act a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.”
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 5× “RCW 19.190.030(1). The legislature followed that declaration with specific findings establishing the first three elements of a CPA claim (unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce that affects the public interest) and a determination that a person who received an unlawful…”
State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 143 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “100 (a violation of the Mortgage Brokers Practices Act is a CPA violation); RCW 19.178.”
State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “146.100 (a violation of the mortgage brokers practices act is a CPA violation); RCW 19.”
Harbers v. Eddie Bauer LLC (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 5× “14 2001) (“RCW 19.190.030 makes a violation of [CEMA] a per se violation of the 15 [CPA].”
Wright v. Lyft, Inc. (Wash. 2017). · cites it 4× “149, § 4(codified in RCW 19.190.030). Sending a commercial e-mail containing false or misleading information constitutes a "violation ofthe consumer protection act.”
Steven Kozol, Larry Ballesteros, Keith Blair, Keith Craig v. Jpay, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Here, Kozol argues that the record demonstrates that JPay may have intentionally caused their JP3s to malfunction, misrepresented that it could not "unlock" their JP3s or offer replacements, and violated RCW 19.190.030(2).6 We disagree. JPay has acknowledged that its new update,…”
Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.190.030 (3) and 19.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030(1) — 10 cases
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “RCW 19.190.030(1). The legislature followed that declaration with specific findings establishing the first three elements of a CPA claim (unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce that affects the public interest) and a determination that a person who received an unlawful…”
Gordon v. Impulse Mktg. Grp., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (E.D. Wash. 2005). “Although Plaintiffs Complaint also alleges a claim under RCW § 19.190.030 and Washington's CPA, the only issue with respect to the application of Rule 9(b) is whether a claim for a violation of RCW § 19.”
Wright v. Lyft, Inc. (Wash. 2017). “149, § 4(codified in RCW 19.190.030). Sending a commercial e-mail containing false or misleading information constitutes a "violation ofthe consumer protection act.”
Harbers v. Eddie Bauer LLC (W.D. Wash. 2019). “14 2001) (“RCW 19.190.030 makes a violation of [CEMA] a per se violation of the 15 [CPA].”
Brown v. Old Navy, LLC (Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030(1)(b) — 1 case
Harbers v. Eddie Bauer LLC (W.D. Wash. 2019). “14 2001) (“RCW 19.190.030 makes a violation of [CEMA] a per se violation of the 15 [CPA].”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030(2) — 1 case
Steven Kozol, Larry Ballesteros, Keith Blair, Keith Craig v. Jpay, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Here, Kozol argues that the record demonstrates that JPay may have intentionally caused their JP3s to malfunction, misrepresented that it could not "unlock" their JP3s or offer replacements, and violated RCW 19.190.030(2).6 We disagree. JPay has acknowledged that its new update,…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030(3) — 5 cases
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). “[25] See Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.030 ; Heckel I, 24 P.”
State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 143 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “100 (a violation of the Mortgage Brokers Practices Act is a CPA violation); RCW 19.178.”
State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “146.100 (a violation of the mortgage brokers practices act is a CPA violation); RCW 19.”
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “RCW 19.190.030(1). The legislature followed that declaration with specific findings establishing the first three elements of a CPA claim (unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce that affects the public interest) and a determination that a person who received an unlawful…”
Wright v. Lyft, Inc. (Wash. 2017). “149, § 4(codified in RCW 19.190.030). Sending a commercial e-mail containing false or misleading information constitutes a "violation ofthe consumer protection act.”
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.