Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In a private action in which an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW 19.86.020, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it:
(1) Violates a statute that incorporates this chapter;
(2) Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative declaration of public interest impact; or
(3)(a) Injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.
[ 2009 c 371 s 2.]
Notes:
Application—2009 c 371: See note following RCW 19.86.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases (34 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 295 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2013).
Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 295 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 19.86.093 provides that a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it: (1) Violates a statute that incorporates this chapter; (2) Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative • declaration of public interest…”
Neil Rush v. William I. Blackburn, 361 P.3d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 19.86.093; accord RCW 19.86.920 (“[T]he intent of the legislature [is] that this act shall not be construed to prohibit acts or practices .”
Westcott v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “; (3) “predatory lending violations”; (4) promissory estoppel, detrimental reliance, and unjust enrichment; (5) fraud; (6) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.”
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “It must instead accept T-Mobile’s álle-gation that Huawei USA is Huawei China’s wholly-owned subsidiary.”
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 307 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “(v) The Court similarly certifies a statutory subclass under the Washington consumer protection statute, Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.020, which prohibits trade practices determined to be unfair or deceptive as injurious to the public interest, Wash.”
Moritz v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “,” RCW 19.86.093, the WCAA does not incorporate the CPA; it merely references the CPA, see RCW 19.”
Michan Rhodes, Et Ano. v. Emily Sharp, Et Ano., 195 Wash. App. 235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 19.86.093; Rush v. Blackburn, 190 Wn.”
Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 951 (W.D. Va. 2012). “In support of their request for judgment on this point, Plaintiffs argue that Nautilus routinely affixed patent labels with misleading patent numbers on their products, that this false marking occurred before and after the accused machines were manufactured, and that it…”
Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 386 (W.D. Va. 2011). “16, 2011) (quoting Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.093 (2010)). It seems obvious that the practice of falsely marking products which are sold to the general public in the stream of commerce has the capacity to injure persons other than SCSRA and Sukumar.”
Steve Miller, et ux v. Drew Dalton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “In 2009, the Washington Legislature adopted RCW 19.86.093 to delineate methods by which a Consumer Protection Act claimant may demonstrate the defendant's conduct impacted the public interest.”
Villegas v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 444 P.3d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “163 and RCW 19.86.093." ¶20 The CPA claims against Nationstar involving mediation proceeded to a bench trial on May 3, 2017.”
Greek Islands Cuisine Inc v. YourPeople Inc (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Greek Islands insists that either public impact test articulated in 4 Hangman Ridge has been superseded by RCW 19.86.093, whereby the legislature 5 clarified that a plaintiff may establish that an alleged unfair or deceptive act or 6 practice is injurious to the public interest…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093(1) — 5 cases
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “It must instead accept T-Mobile’s álle-gation that Huawei USA is Huawei China’s wholly-owned subsidiary.”
Barry M. & Mary Beth Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.a. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Sims v. Midland Funding LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Zunum Aero Inc v. The Boeing Co. (W.D. Wash. 2022).
Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank (Wash. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093(2) — 8 cases
Fairway Collections, Llc, Res/cross-app V. Michael I. Turner, App/cross-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Velicer v. Falconhead Capital LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020).
Frias v. Patenaude & Felix APC (W.D. Wash. 2022).
Stafne v. Burnside (W.D. Wash. 2022).
Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC (W.D. Wash. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093(3) — 8 cases
Greek Islands Cuisine Inc v. YourPeople Inc (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Greek Islands insists that either public impact test articulated in 4 Hangman Ridge has been superseded by RCW 19.86.093, whereby the legislature 5 clarified that a plaintiff may establish that an alleged unfair or deceptive act or 6 practice is injurious to the public interest…”
Barry M. & Mary Beth Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.a. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Spokeo, Inc. v. Whitepages, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Hunter v. Bank of Am., N.A. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Shields v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093(3)(a) — 2 cases
Emily Rains, Apps/cross-resps v. Keystone Windows & Doors, Resp/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Amazon.com Servs. LLC v. Paradigm Clinical Rsch. Inst. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093(3)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Joshua Jordan (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093(b)(3) — 1 case
Lukashin v. United Collection Bureau Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025).
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.