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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.040 (2025)

Violations—Damages

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Damages to the recipient of a commercial electronic mail message or a commercial electronic text message sent in violation of this chapter are $100, or actual damages, whichever is greater.
(2) Damages to an interactive computer service resulting from a violation of this chapter are $1,000, or actual damages, whichever is greater.
[ 2026 c 135 s 2; 2003 c 137 s 5; 1998 c 149 s 5.]

Notes:

Retroactive application—2026 c 135: See note following RCW 19.190.020.
Intent—2003 c 137: See note following RCW 19.190.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · 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 4× “Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.080. Like its federal counterpart, CEMA provides for sizeable statutory damages or actual damages, whichever is greater.”
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (W.D. Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs theory is that CEMA’s statutory damages provision, RCW 19.190.040(1), implicitly establishes CPA’s fourth and fifth elements of injury and causation.”
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 6× “030(3) and RCW 19.190.040(1). While it is unclear why the legislature separated its discussion of the last two elements of a CPA claim (damages and causation) from the first three, both the text of the original statute and its legislative history show that the legislature…”
Wright v. Lyft, Inc., 406 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 20× “040(1) provides a private cause of action for violations of CEMA. Wright contends that it does, while Lyft argues it provides the measure of any damages recoverable under a CPA suit.”
Harbers v. Eddie Bauer LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00968 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 27, 2019). · cites it 6× “C16-1006RSL, 2017 WL 176222 , at *4 (W.D. Wash. 6 Jan. 17, 2017) (concluding that the plaintiff stated a CPA claim under RCW 7 19.”
Michael Aaland, V. CRST Home Solutions, LLC, Et Ano., 575 P.3d 1279 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “19 Under CEMA’s liquidated damages provision RCW 19.190.040, “[d]amages to the recipient of a … commercial electronic text message sent in violation of this chapter are five hundred dollars, or actual damages, whichever is greater.”
Hodgell v. Andersen Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01848 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2024). · cites it 2× “Thus, based on Hodgell’s 24 request for $500-per-email statutory damages under Section 19.190.040 of the Revised Code of 1 Washington, Defendants contend that the amount at stake in this litigation exceeds $75,000.”
Walker-Schaut v. Lido Labs Holding Co., No. 3:23-cv-05944, 2024 WL 2702007 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2024). · cites it 2× “8 Lido Labs’ claim that the RCW 19.190.040 does not itself provide a private right 9 of action is correct, but that does not lead to the conclusion that Walker-Schaut’s claim 10 must be dismissed with prejudice.”
Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, 567 P.3d 38 (Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.190.040. Unlike the CPA, CEMA’s $500 penalty does not require a showing of actual damages.”
Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc, No. 07-35487 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009). · cites it 2× “16 Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.040 . A At the outset, we must frame the issue as it comes to us.”
Brinton v. Vivint Inc, No. 3:23-cv-06105, 2024 WL 3688589 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2024). “Treble 4 damages under the CPA do not apply because Brinton does not assert any actual damages. 5 Mason, 114 Wash. 2d at 856; see Dkt.”
Montes, No. 2:25-cv-00281 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2025). “RCW 19.190.040; Wright, 189 Wash. 2d at 732.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.040(1): 5 cases
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “Plaintiffs theory is that CEMA’s statutory damages provision, RCW 19.190.040(1), implicitly establishes CPA’s fourth and fifth elements of injury and causation.”
Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “030(3) and RCW 19.190.040(1). While it is unclear why the legislature separated its discussion of the last two elements of a CPA claim (damages and causation) from the first three, both the text of the original statute and its legislative history show that the legislature…”
Wright v. Lyft, Inc., 406 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2017). “040(1) provides a private cause of action for violations of CEMA. Wright contends that it does, while Lyft argues it provides the measure of any damages recoverable under a CPA suit.”
Harbers v. Eddie Bauer LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00968 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 27, 2019). “C16-1006RSL, 2017 WL 176222 , at *4 (W.D. Wash. 6 Jan. 17, 2017) (concluding that the plaintiff stated a CPA claim under RCW 7 19.”
Michael Aaland, V. CRST Home Solutions, LLC, Et Ano., 575 P.3d 1279 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “19 Under CEMA’s liquidated damages provision RCW 19.190.040, “[d]amages to the recipient of a … commercial electronic text message sent in violation of this chapter are five hundred dollars, or actual damages, whichever is greater.”
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.