Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.510 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A person who communicates a complaint or information to any branch or agency of federal, state, or local government, or to any self-regulatory organization that regulates persons involved in the securities or futures business and that has been delegated authority by a federal, state, or local government agency and is subject to oversight by the delegating agency, is immune from civil liability for claims based upon the communication to the agency or organization regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency or organization. A person prevailing upon the defense provided for in this section is entitled to recover expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in establishing the defense and in addition shall receive statutory damages of ten thousand dollars. Statutory damages may be denied if the court finds that the complaint or information was communicated in bad faith.
Notes:
Intent—2002 c 232: "Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, involve communications made to influence a government action or outcome which results in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance. SLAPP suits are designed to intimidate the exercise of First Amendment rights and rights under Article I, section 5 of the Washington state Constitution.
Although Washington state adopted the first modern anti-SLAPP law in 1989, that law has, in practice, failed to set forth clear rules for early dismissal review. Since that time, the United States supreme court has made it clear that, as long as the petitioning is aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, product, or outcome, it is protected and the case should be dismissed. Chapter 232, Laws of 2002 amends Washington law to bring it in line with these court decisions which recognizes that the United States Constitution protects advocacy to government, regardless of content or motive, so long as it is designed to have some effect on government decision making." [ 2002 c 232 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 125
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, 479 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2021).
Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, 479 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2021). “510 provides immunity to a “person” who communicates a complaint or information to 1 The term “SLAPP” stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation and was coined by George W.”
Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 467 (Wash. 2010). “¶1 — We are asked to decide whether a government agency qualifies as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. Because the purpose of RCW 4.”
Right-Price Rec., L.L.C. v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 146 Wash. 2d 370 (Wash. 2002). “The citizens’ groups then filed a motion for protective order and a “special” motion to dismiss, claiming that they were immune from civil suit under former RCW 4.24.510 (1999), that they enjoyed common law immunity, and that the constitutional right to petition the government…”
Right-Price Rec. v. Connells Prairie, 46 P.3d 789 (Wash. 2002). “The citizens' groups then filed a motion for protective order and a "special" motion to dismiss, claiming that they were immune from civil suit under former RCW 4.24.510 (1999), that they enjoyed common law immunity, and that the constitutional right to petition the government…”
Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue, 85 P.3d 926 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “A City of Bellevue employee contacted the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) about clear-cutting on property owned by Arkadi and Yelena Gontmakher.”
Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue, 120 Wash. App. 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “— The legislature enacted RCW 4.24.510 to encourage the reporting of potential wrongdoing to governmental entities.”
Intercon Solutions, Inc. v. Basel Action Network, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “The following Motions are before the Court: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Intercon’s Complaint pursuant to the Washington Anti-SLAPP Act, RCW 4.24.510; (2) Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike Intercon’s claims, also pursuant to the Washington Anti-SLAPP Act, RCW 4.”
Saldivar v. Momah, 186 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “The Saldivars argue: (1) they are immune from liability under RCW 4.24.510, (2) the trial court erred when it denied them a jury trial, (3) the trial court erred when it found them liable for abuse of process, and (4) the trial court erred when it excluded certain evidence.”
Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 144 Wash. App. 312 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “On various grounds, the trial court summarily dismissed all of Segaline’s claims and awarded L&I statutory damages under RCW 4.24.510. ¶2 Segaline appeals, arguing (1) L&I is not immune from civil liability under RCW 4.”
Segaline v. State, Dept. of L&i, 182 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “On various grounds, the trial court summarily dismissed all of Segaline's claims and awarded L & I statutory damages under RCW 4.24.510. ¶ 2 Segaline appeals, arguing: (1) L & I is not immune from civil liability under RCW 4.”
Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wash. App. 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “And the defendants are not entitled to an award based on their assertion of immunity under former RCW 4.24.510 (1999). We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court denying fees.”
Skimming v. Boxer, 82 P.3d 707 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “And the defendants are not entitled to an award based on their assertion of immunity under former RCW 4.24.510 (1999). We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court denying fees.”
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.