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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.070 (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 not a violation of RCW 19.190.060 if:
(a) The commercial electronic text message is transmitted at the direction of a person offering cellular telephone or pager service to the person's existing subscriber at no cost to the subscriber unless the subscriber has indicated that he or she is not willing to receive further commercial text messages from the person; or
(b) The unsolicited commercial electronic text message is transmitted by a person to a subscriber and the subscriber has clearly and affirmatively consented in advance to receive these text messages.
(2) No person offering cellular or pager service may be held liable for serving merely as an intermediary between the sender and the recipient of a commercial electronic text message sent in violation of this chapter unless the person is assisting in the transmission of the commercial electronic text message.
[ 2003 c 137 s 4.]

Notes:

Intent—2003 c 137: See note following RCW 19.190.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2021–2025 · leading case: Barton v. Delfgauw (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barton v. Delfgauw (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “” RCW 19.190.070(1)(b). Thus, the success of these claims—as with the TCPA 16 claims—depend on whether plaintiff consented.”
Isaac Gordon v. Robinhood Fin. LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 19.190.070(1)(b). The trial court found that Gordon, John Cameron, attorney Brian Cameron, and attorney Kirk Miller orchestrated the referral text message so as to initiate this and other class action lawsuits.”
Gordon v. Robinhood Fin. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2021). “RCW 19.190.070(b). A CPA violation is 9 established with an RCW 19.”
Michael Aaland, V. Crst Home Solutions, Llc, Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “As a matter of first 4 CEMA is generally not violated where a “message is transmitted at the direction of a person offering cellular telephone or pager service to the person’s existing subscriber at no cost to the subscriber” or where a person who has “clearly and affirmatively…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.070(1) — 1 case
Michael Aaland, V. Crst Home Solutions, Llc, Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “As a matter of first 4 CEMA is generally not violated where a “message is transmitted at the direction of a person offering cellular telephone or pager service to the person’s existing subscriber at no cost to the subscriber” or where a person who has “clearly and affirmatively…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.070(1)(b) — 2 cases
Barton v. Delfgauw (W.D. Wash. 2023). “” RCW 19.190.070(1)(b). Thus, the success of these claims—as with the TCPA 16 claims—depend on whether plaintiff consented.”
Isaac Gordon v. Robinhood Fin. LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 19.190.070(1)(b). The trial court found that Gordon, John Cameron, attorney Brian Cameron, and attorney Kirk Miller orchestrated the referral text message so as to initiate this and other class action lawsuits.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.070(b) — 1 case
Gordon v. Robinhood Fin. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2021). “RCW 19.190.070(b). A CPA violation is 9 established with an 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.