Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter:
(1) "Person" shall include, where applicable, natural persons, corporations, trusts, unincorporated associations and partnerships.
(2) "Trade" and "commerce" shall include the sale of assets or services, and any commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the state of Washington.
(3) "Assets" shall include any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, and wherever situate, and any other thing of value.
[ 1961 c 216 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 239 cases (102 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 8× “RCW 19.86.010(1) and (2); RCW 19.86.020. Goldfarb v.”
Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 171 Wash. 2d 260 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 5× “” RCW 19.86.010(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the transaction here is “commerce” that “directly .”
Schnall v. At & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 259 P.3d 129 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 5× “" RCW 19.86.010(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the transaction here is "commerce" that "directly.”
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 204 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “" RCW 19.86.010(2) (emphasis added). An actionable violation can occur without any consumer or business relationship between the particular plaintiff bringing a private cause of action under the CPA and the actor because "trade or commerce" is not limited to such transactions.”
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 252 F.R.D. 83 (D. Mass. 2008). · cites it 4× “) and Washington (Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.010, et seq.). I conclude that the following statutes probably do require plaintiffs to prove reliance, and I will not certify the Non-Medicare Class under the UDTPAs of the following states: Maryland (Md.”
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “, the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.010 et seq., and the Washington "Prize Statute," Wash.”
George Williams v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, 851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2017). “; Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86.010 , et seq.; Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.”
Theodore C. Swartz v. Kpmg Llp, & Presidio Advisory Servs. Inc. Deutsche Bank Ag Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007). “§ 1964 , (2) under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (‘WCPA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010 et seq., (3) for common-law fraud, and (4) for civil conspiracy.”
In Re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consum. Class Action, 678 F.3d 235 (3rd Cir. 2012). “*242 The MAC asserted violations of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.010, et seq. (Count I), and the consumer protection statutes of the remaining 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (Count II), as well as claims of civil…”
Escalante v. Sentry Ins., 743 P.2d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Not only did it not do so, it went on to include "any commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the state of Washington.”
Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co., 159 P.3d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “" RCW 19.86.010(2). The Legislature intended these terms to be construed broadly.”
Thornell v. Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., 363 P.3d 587 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “RCW 19.86.010 (emphasis added). ¶9 The statutory provisions of the CPA are broadly worded.”
Show all 239 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(1) — 14 cases
Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 19.86.010(1) and (2); RCW 19.86.020. Goldfarb v.”
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 553 P.2d 423 (Wash. 1976).
Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 171 Wash. 2d 260 (Wash. 2011). “” RCW 19.86.010(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the transaction here is “commerce” that “directly .”
Schnall v. At & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 259 P.3d 129 (Wash. 2011). “" RCW 19.86.010(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the transaction here is "commerce" that "directly.”
State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc., 441 P.3d 1203 (Wash. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(2) — 48 cases
Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 19.86.010(1) and (2); RCW 19.86.020. Goldfarb v.”
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 204 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2009). “" RCW 19.86.010(2) (emphasis added). An actionable violation can occur without any consumer or business relationship between the particular plaintiff bringing a private cause of action under the CPA and the actor because "trade or commerce" is not limited to such transactions.”
Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 171 Wash. 2d 260 (Wash. 2011). “” RCW 19.86.010(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the transaction here is “commerce” that “directly .”
Schnall v. At & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 259 P.3d 129 (Wash. 2011). “" RCW 19.86.010(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the transaction here is "commerce" that "directly.”
Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co., 159 P.3d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" RCW 19.86.010(2). The Legislature intended these terms to be construed broadly.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(3) — 2 cases
Hunter v. Bank of Am., N.A. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Larsen v. PTT, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024).
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.