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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020 (2026)

Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
[ 1961 c 216 s 2.]

Notes:

Hearing instrument dispensing, advertising, etc.—Application: RCW 18.35.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 635 cases (212 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 38× “Appellant, State of Washington, seeks reversal of the trial court decision which held that the alleged conduct of respondent real estate brokers did not constitute an unfair method of competition under RCW 19.86.020. The State further challenges the trial court's conclusion that…”
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 204 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 10× “" RCW 19.86.020. The purpose of the CPA is to "complement the body of federal law governing restraints of trade, unfair competition and unfair, deceptive and fraudulent acts and practices in order to protect the public and foster fair and honest competition.”
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 553 P.2d 423 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 16× “That the court assess a civil penalty against each defendant of $2,000 for each and every violation of RCW 19.86.020 occurring after May 14, 1970, and before the date of final determination of this action, pursuant to RCW 19.”
State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 501 P.2d 290 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 24× “The state appeals the trial court's determination that the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes is not a lottery and does not constitute unfair and deceptive conduct in violation of RCW 19.86.020. The respondent, Reader's Digest Association, Inc.”
Anhold v. Daniels, 614 P.2d 184 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 14× “At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial court dismissed her consumer protection action stating that "[n]either the evidence presented nor reasonable inference therefrom establishes a prima facie case of unfair or deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of RCW…”
Nuttall v. Dowell, 639 P.2d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 18× “The basis for this decision appears to be either (1) Schwartz' misrepresentation of the location of the western line was not a violation of RCW 19.86.020, i.e., was not an unfair or deceptive act, or (2) the causal connection between Schwartz' misrepresentation and plaintiff's…”
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins., 675 P.2d 193 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 8× “" RCW 19.86.020. Persons who are injured by such prohibited practices may bring a private action to recover damages and the costs of the suit, including attorney fees.”
Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 11× “Defendant was granted direct discretionary review and assigns error to the dismissal of his CPA violation counterclaims pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) ("failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted").”
Salois v. Mut. of Omaha Ins., 581 P.2d 1349 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 10× “090 for defendant's violation of RCW 19.86.020. *358 There are several complex and intertwined theories involved, but our analysis must be bottomed on two principles: (1) the legislature has declared that the Consumer Protection Act is to be "liberally construed that its…”
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 16× “The trial court concluded that the defendant's acts were violations of the landlord-tenant act and of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020. *545 Acting pursuant to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the trial court awarded restitution in the sum of $125 to a tenant…”
Dix v. ICT Grp., Inc., 160 Wash. 2d 826 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 5× “¶ 22 Prior to 1970, the CPA did not allow private suits for damages for violations of RCW 19.86.020, which provides: “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
Dix v. ICT Grp., Inc., 161 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 5× “¶ 22 Prior to 1970, the CPA did not allow private suits for damages for violations of RCW 19.86.020, which provides: "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
Show all 635 citing cases →
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.