Wash. Rev. Code » Title 61 · Chapter 61.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 61.34.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In addition to the criminal penalties provided in RCW 61.34.030, the legislature finds that the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying chapter 19.86 RCW. A violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and is an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying chapter 19.86 RCW.
(2) In a private right of action under chapter 19.86 RCW for a violation of this chapter, the court may double or triple the award of damages pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, subject to the statutory limit. If, however, the court determines that the defendant acted in bad faith, the limit for doubling or tripling the award of damages may be increased, but shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars. Any claim for damages brought under this chapter must be commenced within four years after the date of the alleged violation.
(3) The remedies provided in this chapter are cumulative and do not restrict any remedy that is otherwise available. The provisions of this chapter are not exclusive and are in addition to any other requirements, rights, remedies, and penalties provided by law. An action under this chapter shall not affect the rights in the distressed home held by a distressed home purchaser for value under this chapter or other applicable law.
[ 2008 c 278 s 11; 1988 c 33 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Jametsky v. Olsen, 317 P.3d 1003 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jametsky v. Olsen, 317 P.3d 1003 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “In establishing that any violation of the DPCA is “an unfair method of competition” for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, the legislature found “the practices covered by [the DPCA] are matters vitally affecting the public interest.”
Cristy Macgilvary, V. Trudel, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “2d at 764 ; RCW 61.34.040(1). The DPCA also provides that “courts may impose up to $100,000 in exemplary damages for bad faith violations of the DPCA.”
Jametsky v. Olsen (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “In establishing that any violation of the DPCA is "an unfair method of competition" for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, the legislature found "the practices covered by [the DPCA] are matters vitally affecting the public interest.”
Russell v. WADOT Capital Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “040(1) (providing that the practices covered by the DPCA are “matters vitally affecting the public interest” and that a violation of the DPCA “is an unfair 22 method of competition for the purpose of applying” the WCPA).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.34.040(1) — 3 cases
Jametsky v. Olsen, 317 P.3d 1003 (Wash. 2014). “In establishing that any violation of the DPCA is “an unfair method of competition” for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, the legislature found “the practices covered by [the DPCA] are matters vitally affecting the public interest.”
Cristy Macgilvary, V. Trudel, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “2d at 764 ; RCW 61.34.040(1). The DPCA also provides that “courts may impose up to $100,000 in exemplary damages for bad faith violations of the DPCA.”
Russell v. WADOT Capital Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “040(1) (providing that the practices covered by the DPCA are “matters vitally affecting the public interest” and that a violation of the DPCA “is an unfair 22 method of competition for the purpose of applying” the WCPA).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.34.040(2) — 3 cases
Jametsky v. Olsen, 317 P.3d 1003 (Wash. 2014). “In establishing that any violation of the DPCA is “an unfair method of competition” for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, the legislature found “the practices covered by [the DPCA] are matters vitally affecting the public interest.”
Cristy Macgilvary, V. Trudel, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “2d at 764 ; RCW 61.34.040(1). The DPCA also provides that “courts may impose up to $100,000 in exemplary damages for bad faith violations of the DPCA.”
Jametsky v. Olsen (Wash. 2014). “In establishing that any violation of the DPCA is "an unfair method of competition" for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, the legislature found "the practices covered by [the DPCA] are matters vitally affecting the public interest.”
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.