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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.170 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions otherwise permitted, prohibited or regulated under laws administered by the insurance commissioner of this state, the Washington utilities and transportation commission, the federal power commission or actions or transactions permitted by any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That actions and transactions prohibited or regulated under the laws administered by the insurance commissioner shall be subject to the provisions of RCW 19.86.020 and all sections of chapter 216, Laws of 1961 and chapter 19.86 RCW which provide for the implementation and enforcement of RCW 19.86.020 except that nothing required or permitted to be done pursuant to Title 48 RCW shall be construed to be a violation of RCW 19.86.020: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That actions or transactions specifically permitted within the statutory authority granted to any regulatory board or commission established within Title 18 RCW shall not be construed to be a violation of chapter 19.86 RCW: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That this chapter shall apply to actions and transactions in connection with the disposition of human remains.
RCW 9A.20.010(2) shall not be applicable to the terms of this chapter and no penalty or remedy shall result from a violation of this chapter except as expressly provided herein.
[ 1977 c 49 s 1; 1974 ex.s. c 158 s 1; 1967 c 147 s 1; 1961 c 216 s 17.]

Notes:

Radio communications: RCW 80.04.530.
Telecommunications: RCW 80.36.360.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · 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 26× “" Gross, supra at 415 (quoting RCW 19.86.170). The first question to be resolved under this issue is whether Puget is a regulated industry exempt from the CPA.”
INDOOR BILLBOARD WASHINGTON, INC. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 170 P.3d 10 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “¶ 21 Indoor Billboard argues that because RCW 19.86.170 eliminated immunity from CPA claims for CTCs, Integra cannot assert that the WUTC has exclusive jurisdiction over Integra's actions.”
Indus. Indem. Co. of Nw., Inc. v. Kallevig, 792 P.2d 520 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 8× “Based upon our analysis of RCW 19.86.170, RCW 48.30-.010, and WAC 284-30-330, we conclude that the trial court correctly instructed the jury.”
Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wash. 2d 59 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 6× “RCW 19.86.170. ¶24 In 1985, the legislature enacted legislation that specifically exempted actions or transactions of CTCs from the immunity granted under RCW 19.”
State v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., 622 P.2d 1185 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 14× “The doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies were held not to apply since, under RCW 18.”
State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 501 P.2d 290 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 12× “020 is unconstitutionally vague, (2) the field has been preempted by the United States Postal Department, (3) the acts sought to be enjoined are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter called FTC) and are therefore exempted from the Consumer Protection Act by RCW…”
Robinson v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc., 22 P.3d 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “[2] Exemption We first consider the car rental companies' claim that the practices challenged here are exempt under RCW 19.86.170. [3] Specifically, they claim that the Port is a "regulatory body" and "permits" such practices.”
Vogt v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 817 P.2d 1364 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 8× “RCW 19.86.170 provides in part that: Nothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions otherwise permitted, prohibited or regulated under *548 laws administered by the insurance commissioner of this state, the Washington utilities and transportation commission, the…”
Robinson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 106 Wash. App. 104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “RCW 19.86.170 provides in part that: Nothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions otherwise permitted, prohibited or regulated under laws administered by the insurance commissioner of this state, the Washington utilities and transportation commission, the…”
Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “The RCW § 19.86.170 Bar Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ CPA claims are barred under a Washington statute, RCW § 19.”
Kittilson v. Ford, 595 P.2d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 10× “The question presented by this argument is whether the defendant's activity was "otherwise regulated" within the meaning of RCW 19.86.170. Prior to its recent amendment, [7] that statute read: *409 Nothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions otherwise…”
Dick v. Attorney Gen., 521 P.2d 702 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 18× “110(2) (a) that the demand set forth the general subject matter of the investigation; that the information was privileged; and finally that the profession of drugless healing was regulated by the State of Washington under RCW 18.”
Show all 111 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.