Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.71
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.71.070 (2026)

Consumer Protection Act—Defense

✓ 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 covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Violations of this chapter are not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business. A violation of this chapter is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. In an action under chapter 19.86 RCW due to an automotive repair facility's charging a customer an amount in excess of one hundred ten percent of the amount authorized by the customer, a violation shall not be found if the automotive repair facility proves by a preponderance of the evidence that its conduct was reasonable, necessary, and justified under the circumstances.
Notwithstanding RCW 46.64.050, no violation of this chapter shall give rise to criminal liability under that section.
[ 1993 c 424 s 12; 1982 c 62 s 9; 1977 ex.s. c 280 s 7.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective date—1993 c 424: See notes following RCW 46.71.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: I-5 Truck Sales & Serv. Co. v. Underwood, 645 P.2d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
I-5 Truck Sales & Serv. Co. v. Underwood, 645 P.2d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Defendants further charged plaintiff with a violation of the Consumer Protection Act in accordance with the express statutory provision of RCW 46.71.070 which declares the wrongful assertion of a possessory or chattel lien to be an unfair practice under RCW 19.”
Clark v. Luepke, 809 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “047; RCW 46.71.070. In cases where the repairman sues to collect his or her bill, the effect is merely to confirm the common law allocation of the burden of proof.”
Nuttall v. Dowell, 639 P.2d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “440, governing collection agencies, and RCW 46.71.070, governing automotive repairs.”
Webb v. Ray, 688 P.2d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “020 2 as expressly provided in *680 former RCW 46.71.070 3 (Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess.”
Bill McCurley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Rutz, 808 P.2d 1167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “040 provides in part: (1) If the price of the automotive repairs is estimated to exceed seventy-five dollars and the repairman chooses to preserve any right to assert a possessory or chattel lien or if the customer requests a written price estimate, the automotive repairman…”
Clark v. Luepke, 826 P.2d 147 (Wash. 1992). “Under RCW 46.71.070: A violation of this chapter is an unfair act or practice in violation of the consumer protection act, chapter 19.”
Larson Motors, V Paul & Jane Doe Snypp, 413 P.3d 632 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “280, RCW 46.71.070, and RCW 19.86.090” or, alternatively, that we direct the superior court to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs on remand under RAP 18.”
Campbell v. Seattle Engine Rebuilders & Remanufacturing, Inc., 876 P.2d 948 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “]” RCW 46.71.070. While this declaration establishes an unfair or deceptive act per se, it does not, under the Hangman Ridge analysis, establish public interest impact per se.”
Gaines (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev. Code § 46.71.070 . Plaintiff alleges all the 13 “foregoing violations of the ARFA constitute separate and independent violations of the CPA.”
Gaines v. Valvoline LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “§ 46.71.070. 23 4 The CPA makes it unlawful to engage in “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
James Swain, V Sureway Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “That would be RCW 46.71.070. "[Wjhen itcomes to the Consumer Protection Act, if the Courtwants to throw out the - under RCW 19.”
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.