Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.036 (2026)

Application of consumer protection act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Entering into or transacting a usurious contract is hereby declared to be an unfair act or practice in the conduct of commerce for the purpose of the application of the consumer protection act found in chapter 19.86 RCW.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 23 s 7.]

Notes:

Severability—Savings—1967 ex.s. c 23: See notes following RCW 19.52.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1981–2015 · leading case: State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “This holding is in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority in both federal law and the decisions of sister jurisdictions and comports with both the purpose and intent of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 and the Consumer Protection Act.”
Bingham v. Lechner, 45 P.3d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “See RCW 19.52.036. [8] Bingham v. Lechner, No, XXXXX-X-X, 87 Wash.”
Bingham v. Lechner, 111 Wash. App. 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “See RCW 19.52.036. Bingham, v. Lechner, noted at 87 Wn.”
Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 637 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1981). “RCW 19.52.036. The legislature has clearly expressed the policy that the protection of the consuming public is enhanced by permitting application of the Consumer Protection Act in those situations where consumers are faced with usurious con *675 tracts.”
Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013). “See RCW 19.52.036 (usury); RCW 19.146.100 (MBPA).”
MacKey v. Maurer, 220 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ¶ 14 RCW 19.52.036 provides that "[e]ntering into or transacting a usurious contract is hereby declared to be an unfair act or practice in the conduct of commerce for the purpose of the application of the consumer protection act found in chapter 19.”
Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wash. App. 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Consumer Protection Act |14 RCW 19.52.036 provides that “[e]ntering into or transacting a usurious contract is hereby declared to be an unfair act or practice in the conduct of commerce for the purpose of the application of the consumer protection act found in chapter 19.”
Castronuevo v. Gen. Acceptance Corp., 905 P.2d 387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “*755 For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s decision in favor of GAC is affirmed, and GAC’s request for attorney fees on appeal is denied.”
Cuevas v. Montoya, 740 P.2d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 19.52.036 declares that entering or transacting a usurious contract is an unfair trade or practice for the purpose of application of the Consumer Protection Act found in RCW 19.”
Penny Arneson v. Gary Nordlund (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See RCW 19.52.036; RCW 31.04.208. A The CLA has been frequently amended since its 1991 enactment.”
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.