Wash. Rev. Code » Title 31 · Chapter 31.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 31.04.208 (2026)

Application of consumer protection act

✓ 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 finds that the practices governed by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Any violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and is an unfair and deceptive act or practice and unfair method of competition in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of RCW 19.86.020. Remedies provided by chapter 19.86 RCW are cumulative and not exclusive.
[ 2001 c 81 s 17.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Est. of Verl A. Brantner v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Verl A. Brantner v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 2× “” RCW 31.04.208. The CLA further provides that “[a]ny 14 violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation 15 of business and is an unfair and deceptive act or practice and unfair method of 16 competition in the conduct of trade or…”
Akil v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “of Brantner, 2021 WL 3053055 , at *4 (quoting RCW 31.04.208) 3 (emphasis added). The Washington legislature thus intended that a violation of the CLA create a 4 basis for a per se CPA claim.”
Jonathan D. Clausen v. WBL SPO I, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Clausen’s claims are premised on the assertion that WBL violated the CLA by making an unlicensed loan at an excessive interest rate secured by a lien on his primary dwelling. However, as discussed above, the CLA does not apply to the loan at issue because the borrower—Lilac…”
Penny Arneson v. Gary Nordlund (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “036; RCW 31.04.208. A The CLA has been frequently amended since its 1991 enactment.”
Mary E. Nielson v. Household Fin. Corp. III (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 31.04.208. The statute of limitations for CPA claims is four years after accrual, RCW 19.”
Matthew Noffke, V. Susan Karstedt (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “See RCW 31.04.208 (an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce affecting public interest).”
Sutter v. Global Equity Fin. Inc (E.D. Wash. 2023). “” RCW 31.04.208. It is a 17 violation of the CLA to “[d]irectly or indirectly engage in any unfair or deceptive 18 practice toward any person[.”
Pierce v. NovaStar Mortg., Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “RCW 31.04.208. Application of the CLA is governed by the following provision: Each loan made to a resident of this state by a licensee is subject to the authority and restrictions of this chapter, unless such loan is made under the authority of another license issued pursuant to…”
Pierce v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 624 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “RCW 31.04.208. NovaStar does not appear to contest that violations of the CLA are per se violations of the CPA but instead disputes the applicability of the CLA and contends that verbal disclosures are relevant to the remaining causation and injury elements of a CPA claim.”
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.