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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state, or as parens patriae on behalf of persons residing in the state, against any person to restrain and prevent the doing of any act herein prohibited or declared to be unlawful; and the prevailing party may, in the discretion of the court, recover the costs of said action including a reasonable attorney's fee.
(2) The court may make such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any act herein prohibited or declared to be unlawful.
(3) Upon a violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, the court may also make such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired, regardless of whether such person purchased or transacted for goods or services directly with the defendant or indirectly through resellers. The court shall exclude from the amount of monetary relief awarded in an action pursuant to this subsection any amount that duplicates amounts that have been awarded for the same violation. The court should consider consolidation or coordination with other related actions, to the extent practicable, to avoid duplicate recovery.
[ 2007 c 66 s 1; 1970 ex.s. c 26 s 1; 1961 c 216 s 8.]

Notes:

Effective date—2007 c 66: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [April 17, 2007]." [ 2007 c 66 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 45× “120’s statute of limitations did not apply to its claims under RCW 19.86.080. Id. at 46. The State also argued that it was exempt from the statute of limitations under RCW 4.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 35× “120 applies to the Washington’s Attorney General’s Complaint brought pursuant to its parens patriae authority under RCW 19.86.080 that seeks actual damages [11] for violations of RCW 19.”
State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 13× “Finally, the State asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing defendants pursuant to the discretionary authority granted under RCW 19.86.080. *795 We affirm the trial court's conclusion that respondents did not violate RCW 19.”
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 553 P.2d 423 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 8× “" The award of costs and attorney fees is consistent with this statutory directive.”
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 10× “to proceed under the act is found in the following section thereof: The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state against any person to restrain and prevent *546 the doing of any act herein prohibited or declared to be unlawful; and the prevailing party may,…”
Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080 ; Cal. Bus. & Prof.”
State v. Tacoma-Pierce Cnty. Multiple Listing Serv., 622 P.2d 1190 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 6× “There is no allegation of any violation of RCW 18.85. Violations of the Consumer Protection Act are not cognizable by either the Department of Licensing or the Real Estate Commission but rather by the courts.”
State Of Washington, Resp/x-app v. The Mandatory Poster Agency Inc, Apps/x-resps, 199 Wash. App. 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “28 RCW 19.86.080; State ex rel. Dep’t of Ecology v.”
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 553 P.2d 442 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 5× “RCW 19.86.080 of the Consumer Protection Act directs the court to “make such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any act herein prohibited or…”
State Of Washington v. Living Essentials, Llc, Et Ano., 436 P.3d 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.86.080(1) provides that “the prevailing party [in a CPA action] may, in the discretion of the court, recover the costs of said action including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
State v. State Credit Ass'n, 657 P.2d 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “RCW 19.86.080 provides in part: The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state against any person to restrain and prevent the doing of any act herein prohibited or declared to be unlawful; and the prevailing party may, in the discretion of the court, recover…”
Haner v. Quincy Farm Chemicals, Inc., 649 P.2d 828 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 3× “In an action brought by the Attorney General under RCW 19.86.080, the court found the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes to be a violation of Const, art.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080(1) — 22 cases
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). “120’s statute of limitations did not apply to its claims under RCW 19.86.080. Id. at 46. The State also argued that it was exempt from the statute of limitations under RCW 4.”
State Of Washington v. Living Essentials, Llc, Et Ano., 436 P.3d 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 19.86.080(1) provides that “the prevailing party [in a CPA action] may, in the discretion of the court, recover the costs of said action including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
State Of Washington, Resp/x-app v. The Mandatory Poster Agency Inc, Apps/x-resps, 199 Wash. App. 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “28 RCW 19.86.080; State ex rel. Dep’t of Ecology v.”
State v. Kaiser, 161 Wash. App. 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Kaiser, 254 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080(2) — 3 cases
In re Breast Cancer Prevention Fund, 574 B.R. 193 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2017).
State Of Washington, V. Starkist Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Comcast Cable Commc'n Mgmt v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080(3) — 7 cases
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). “120’s statute of limitations did not apply to its claims under RCW 19.86.080. Id. at 46. The State also argued that it was exempt from the statute of limitations under RCW 4.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “120 applies to the Washington’s Attorney General’s Complaint brought pursuant to its parens patriae authority under RCW 19.86.080 that seeks actual damages [11] for violations of RCW 19.”
State v. AU Optronics Corp., 180 Wash. App. 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. LG Elecs., Inc. (Wash. 2016).
State Of Washington v. Lg Elec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080(l) — 1 case
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “120 applies to the Washington’s Attorney General’s Complaint brought pursuant to its parens patriae authority under RCW 19.86.080 that seeks actual damages [11] for violations of RCW 19.”
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.