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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.920 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature hereby declares that the purpose of this act is to complement the body of federal law governing restraints of trade, unfair competition and unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent acts or practices in order to protect the public and foster fair and honest competition. It is the intent of the legislature that, in construing this act, the courts be guided by final decisions of the federal courts and final orders of the federal trade commission interpreting the various federal statutes dealing with the same or similar matters and that in deciding whether conduct restrains or monopolizes trade or commerce or may substantially lessen competition, determination of the relevant market or effective area of competition shall not be limited by the boundaries of the state of Washington. To this end this act shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be served.
It is, however, the intent of the legislature that this act shall not be construed to prohibit acts or practices which are reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business or which are not injurious to the public interest, nor be construed to authorize those acts or practices which unreasonably restrain trade or are unreasonable per se.
[ 1985 c 401 s 1; 1983 c 288 s 4; 1983 c 3 s 25; 1961 c 216 s 20.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: "This act" originally appears in 1961 c 216.
Short title—Purposes—1983 c 288: See note following RCW 19.86.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 241 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 204 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 204 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 5× “" RCW 19.86.920; Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys.”
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins., 675 P.2d 193 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 7× “Rev. 57 , 77 app. 1 (1980). Like most if not all of these statutes, RCW 19.”
Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 8× “RCW 19.86.920 provides: The legislature hereby declares that the purpose of this act is to complement the body of federal law governing restraints of trade, unfair competition and unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent acts or practices in order to protect the public and foster fair…”
State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 501 P.2d 290 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 12× “[3] The Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86.920) further declares that: [T]he purpose of this act is to complement the body of federal law governing restraints of trade, unfair competition and unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent acts or practices in order to protect the public and…”
Eastlake Constr. Co. v. Hess, 686 P.2d 465 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 8× “RCW 19.86.920. In particular, the act is designed to protect the public from those who would repeatedly indulge in unfair or deceptive practices, as Hess claims Eastlake has done.”
State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 10× “§ 45 (a)(1). When the Legislature enacted the Consumer Protection Act, it anticipated that our courts would be guided by the interpretation given by federal courts to their corresponding federal statutes.”
State v. Tacoma-Pierce Cnty. Multiple Listing Serv., 622 P.2d 1190 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 12× “Plainly, some entity, judicial or administrative, must determine whether the acts or practices alleged herein are reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business or whether they are not injurious to the public interest.”
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 858 P.2d 1054 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 4× “2d 871 (1989), the court looked to federal law as directed in RCW 19.86.920 and quoted Reiter v. *318 Sonotone Corp.”
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 553 P.2d 423 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 6× “RCW 19.86.920 [9] supports our approval of the costs and attorney fee award.”
State Of Washington v. Living Essentials, Llc, Et Ano., 436 P.3d 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “76463-2-1/6 1. The CPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 10× “Although the Legislature has mandated that the "act shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be served", RCW 19.86.920, that is not to say that the judiciary should not give the most careful consideration to the "process of judicial inclusion and exclusion"…”
Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 161 P.3d 1000 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 4× “" RCW 19.86.920. *1006 ¶ 13 Private enforcement of the CPA was not possible until 1971, when the legislature created the private right of action to encourage it.”
Show all 241 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.