Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.70
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.70.310 (2026)

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
Any violation of this chapter is deemed to affect the public interest and constitutes a violation of chapter 19.86 RCW.
[ 1986 c 241 s 23.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 225 P.3d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 225 P.3d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.70.310. ¶43 Finding no violation of chapter 46.”
Duane Young v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 442 P.3d 5 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Toyota Motor Sales codified at RCW 46.70.310. Demonstration of a violation of the chapter therefore satisfies the first two elements of a CPA claim.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007). “" RCW 46.70.310 provides that "[a]ny violation of this chapter is deemed to affect the public interest and constitutes a violation of chapter 19.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 160 Wash. 2d 173 (Wash. 2007). “” RCW 46.70.310 provides that “[a]ny violation of this chapter is deemed to affect the public interest and constitutes a violation of chapter 19.”
Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck & Auto Outlet, 229 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.70.310. ¶ 26 Despite the apparent overlapping coverage, the dealership presents two arguments for finding that the ADPA and its one year statute of limitations should apply exclusively in this case.”
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “150 (declaring, as to Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act, that “the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act”), RCW 46.70.310 (declaring, as to the Auto Dealers Practice Act,…”
Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck & Auto Outlet, Inc., 155 Wash. App. 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.70.310. ¶26 Despite the apparent overlapping coverage, the dealership presents two arguments for finding that the ADPA and its one year statute of limitations should apply exclusively in this case.”
Banuelos v. TSA Washington, Inc., 141 P.3d 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶ 24 Regarding treble damages, under RCW 46.70.310, any violation of chapter 46.”
Plouse v. Bud Clary of Yakima, Inc., 116 P.3d 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 46.70.310; RCW 19.86.020. Mr. Plouse has not shown, then, that Clary violated the Consumer Protection Act.”
Anderson v. Valley Quality Homes, Inc., 928 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “: RCW 46.70.310 provides "Any violation of this chapter [unfair business practices — dealers’ licenses] is deemed to affect the public interest and constitutes a violation of [the CPA],” and RCW 48.”
Plouse v. Bud Clary of Yakima, Inc., 128 Wash. App. 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 46.70.310; RCW 19.86.020. Mr. Plouse has not shown, then, that Clary violated the Consumer Protection Act.”
Bell v. Muller, 118 P.3d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “180(2) prohibits the inclusion of terms in a vehicle sale agreement for administrative costs (such as licensing) that are not actually paid to the state.”
Show all 16 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.