Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.17A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.780 (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 any action brought under this chapter, the court may award to the commission all reasonable costs of investigation and trial, including reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court. If the violation is found to have been intentional, the amount of the judgment, which shall for this purpose include the costs, may be trebled as punitive damages. If damages or trebled damages are awarded in such an action brought against a lobbyist, the judgment may be awarded against the lobbyist, and the lobbyist's employer or employers joined as defendants, jointly, severally, or both. If the defendant prevails, he or she shall be awarded all costs of trial and may be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court and paid by the state of Washington.
[ 2018 c 304 s 17.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2018 c 304: See note following RCW 42.17A.235.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 461 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 461 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 8× “765(5) (2010), recodified as RCW 42.17A.780. GMA filed 5 State v. Grocery Mfrs.”
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 502 P.3d 806 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 6× “RCW 42.17A.780. GMA asked for “a [m]odest, [p]artially [s]uspended, [p]enalty.”
State Of Washington, V. Meta Platforms, Inc., 560 P.3d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “” RCW 42.17A.780. Meta challenges the superior court’s $24,660,000.”
State Of Washington, V. Tim Eyman (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 14× “In addition, the court awards attorney fees to the State under RCW 42.17A.780. The court further orders that the following sentence be deleted from page 20 of the court’s opinion: “At no time after February 10 did Eyman object to or attempt to challenge the findings of fact or…”
State v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Wash. 2026). · cites it 5× “Former RCW 42.17A.780. 15 The third requester sought information on “‘every political ad shown in Washington State since 2016,’” which included at least 1,600 advertisements, including every advertisement sought in the earlier two requests.”
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.