Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.030 (2026)
Contracts, combinations, conspiracies in restraint of trade 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
Every contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is hereby declared unlawful.
[ 1961 c 216 s 3.]
Notes:
Monopolies and trusts prohibited: State Constitution Art. 12 s 22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984).
State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984). “The complaint alleged that the defendants combined and conspired to eliminate price competition in violation of RCW 19.86.030 and engaged in unfair methods of competition in violation of RCW 19.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 1035 (Wash. 2016). “The State’s complaint alleged that between March 1995 and November 2007, the defendants violated the antitrust provision of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86.030, by conspiring to raise prices and set production levels in the market for CRTs.”
Ballo v. James S. Black Co., 692 P.2d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “*25 Following a bench trial, the court determined the defendants combined and conspired with other builders to fix prices of Comstock lots and homes in restraint of trade, RCW 19.86.030, and constituted an unfair method of competition, RCW 19.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). “The State alleges that between at least March 1, 1995, through at least November 25, 2007, the defendants violated RCW 19.86.030, which prohibits any “contract, combination .”
Strenge v. Clarke, 569 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1977). “060, or any person so injured because he refuses to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.”
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 24 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 19.86.030. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 948 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 19.86.030. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”
Murray Publ'g Co. v. Malmquist, 832 P.2d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “The trial court further found, however, that the exclusive provisions of the contract constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade under RCW 19.86.030 and .040 and that Murray Pubhshing's business expectancy arising from those provisions was therefore unenforceable.”
Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996). “020 (unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce), RCW 19.86.030 (restraints of trade), RCW 19.”
Johnston v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 538 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1975). “060, or any person so injured because he refuses to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “080 that seeks actual damages [11] for violations of RCW 19.86.030? (2) Whether RCW 4.16.160 should be applied to the Washington Attorney General’s parens patriae antitrust lawsuit seeking actual damages [12] and restitution for citizens of Washington? *131 ¶8 On August 2, 2013,…”
Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010). “Christopher Hesse and Nathaniel Olson (“the Washington Plaintiffs”) filed separate class actions in Washington state court *585 alleging violations of the B & 0 Tax Statute and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.030, as well as common law…”
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.