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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.040 (2026)

Monopolies and attempted monopolies 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
It shall be unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
[ 1961 c 216 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1964–2023 · leading case: Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “030 (restraints of trade), RCW 19.86.040 (monopolies), RCW 19.86.050 (tying arrangements), RCW 19.”
State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “86.030 prohibiting contracts or conspiracies in restraint of trade is our State's equivalent of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.”
Murray Publ'g Co. v. Malmquist, 832 P.2d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “030 and RCW 19.86.040 and that Murray Publishing therefore "had no legitimate business expectancy with which [Malmquist] knowingly interfered.”
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). “Attempt To Monopolize No Washington case has defined the elements of an illegal "attempt to monopolize" under RCW 19.86.040. Under federal case law a claimant must establish: (1) specific intent to monopolize; (2) predatory or anticompetitive conduct directed to accomplishing an…”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Taxpayers, 479 P.2d 61 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 2× “); RCW 19.86.040 makes any attempt to effect a monopoly illegal; and RCW 19.”
Free Freehand Corp. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “; and (6) Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.040 et seq. Id. at 27-30. Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) treble damages; (2) an injunction requiring divestiture of FreeHand; and (3) attorney’s fees and costs.”
Long v. Chiropractic Soc'y, 613 P.2d 124 (Wash. 1980). “They also invoke RCW 19.86.040 which prohibits monopolies.”
Washington Osteopathic Med. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Med. Serv. Corp., 478 P.2d 228 (Wash. 1970). “030), monopolistic (RCW 19.86.040), and in violation of the act’s prohibition against tying agreements (RCW 19.”
Laurence J. Gordon, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 1144 (W.D. Wash. 1983). “” See ROW § 19.86.040 (identical language in the Washington statute).”
State v. Sterling Theatres Co., 394 P.2d 226 (Wash. 1964). “” (RCW 19.86.040) The focal point of the complaint and the state’s enforcement activity was the Sterling Theatre group, which was alleged to have monopolized second-run exhibition of feature films in Seattle, and to be attempting to monopolize subsequent runs of commercial…”
Omega Env't, Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc., 127 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1997). “They also alleged that the defendants had conspired to monopolize, and attempted to monopolize, the market for the sale of petroleum dispensing equipment in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act and Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.040 . In their final antitrust claim, plaintiffs contended…”
Consol. Dairy Prods. Co. v. Bar-T Ranch Dairy, Inc., 642 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.86.040. Under RCW 19.86.090, any person injured in his business or property by a violation of these sections is entitled to bring an action for damages.”
Show all 25 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.