Wash. Rev. Code » Title 63 · Chapter 63.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5886-S.SL) ***
Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, on or in goods, merchandise, or products entered into commerce in this state, or for purposes of advertising products, merchandise, goods, or services, or for purposes of fund-raising or solicitation of donations, or if any person disseminates or publishes such advertisements in this state, without written or oral, express or implied consent of the owner of the right, has infringed such right. An infringement may occur under this section without regard to whether the use or activity is for profit or not for profit.
[ 1998 c 274 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 63.60.050 and .060. Under both the statutory cause of action and the common law, there is no cause of action for the publication of matters in the public interest.”
Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (W.D. Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “Count V — Right of Publicity Under RCW 63.60.050, a right of publicity claim accrues when: Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, on or in goods, merchandise, or products…”
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “for purposes of advertising products, merchandise, goods, or services, or for purposes of fund raising or solicitation of donations, or if any person disseminates or publishes such advertisements in this state, without written or oral, express or implied consent of the owner of…”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “15 RCW 63.60.050. Conduct can infringe the WPRA regardless of “whether the use or 16 activity is for profit or not for profit.”
Gray v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 3× “6 18 (quoting RCW § 63.60.050 (emphasis added by Plaintiffs)).”
Enter. Mgmt. Ltd. Inc v. Construx Software Builders Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “23 Under RCW § 63.60.050, 24 1 Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, on or in goods, 2 merchandise, or products entered into commerce in this state, or for purposes of…”
Panda Paws Rescue v. Walters (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 2× “17 RCW 63.60.050; see also RCW 63.60.060 (authorizing a cause of action for infringement 18 of personality rights).”
Gray v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “12 RCW § 63.60.050. 13 The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to allege a PRA violation.”
Snell v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “5 RCW 63.60.050. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights under the WPRA when 6 they forged her signature on a position description form (PDF) that was later used to elevate 7 Wright from a salary level 31 to level 51.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “CODE § 63.60.050. LaRock argues 14 that the free profile previews and free trials published by ZoomInfo wrongly use LaRock and other 15 putative class members’ names to advertise ZoomInfo’s products and services.”
Sant v. RocketReach LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “They bring claims under the 18 Washington Personality Rights Act (“WPRA”), RCW 63.60.050, the California Right of 19 Publicity Law (“CRPL”), Cal.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “CODE § 63.60.050. Dkt. No. 1. 14 ZoomInfo seeks to appeal the Court’s denial of its motion to strike the class allegations based on 15 the WPRA’s class action bar (Dkt.”
Show all 22 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.