Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.96
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040 (2025)

Request for correction or clarification

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person may maintain an action for defamation or another claim covered by this chapter only if:
(a) The person has made a timely and adequate request for correction or clarification from the defendant; or
(b) The defendant has made a correction or clarification.
(2) A request for correction or clarification is timely if made within the period of limitation for commencement of an action for defamation.
(3) A request for correction or clarification is adequate if it:
(a) Is made in writing and reasonably identifies the person making the request;
(b) Specifies with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory or otherwise actionable and, to the extent known, the time and place of publication;
(c) Alleges the defamatory meaning of the statement;
(d) Specifies the circumstances giving rise to any defamatory meaning of the statement which arises from other than the express language of the publication; and
(e) States that the alleged defamatory meaning of the statement is false.
(4) In the absence of a previous adequate request, service of a summons and complaint stating a claim for defamation or another claim covered by this chapter and containing the information required in subsection (3) of this section constitutes an adequate request for correction or clarification.
(5) The period of limitation for commencement of a defamation action or another claim covered by this chapter is tolled during the period allowed in RCW 7.96.070(1) for responding to a request for correction or clarification.
[ 2013 c 294 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co., No. 2:18-cv-00537 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co., No. 2:18-cv-00537 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020). · cites it 6× “” RCW 7.96.040(1)(a). The UCCDA defines an 2 || “adequate” request for correction or clarification as one that: 3 (a) Is made in writing and reasonably identifies the person making the request; 4 (b) Specifies with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory…”
Neal v. City of Bainbridge Island, No. 3:20-cv-06025 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2023). · cites it 4× “24 1 5) Mitigation of Damages; 2 6) Privilege; 3 7) Intra-Corporate Conspiracy Doctrine; 4 8) Third Party at Fault; 5 9) Public Figure; 6 10) First Amendment; 7 11) Public Duty Doctrine; 8 12) Failure to Comply with Washington Revised Code § 7.96.040; 9 13) RCW 4.84 Frivolous…”
Lutz v. Spokane Reg'l Health Dist., No. 2:22-cv-00028 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2023). · cites it 3× “16 SRHD contends that Lutz has simply recited the elements of defamation and fails 17 to allege whether he has met the “timely and adequate correction or clarification” 18 requirement of RCW 7.96.040. ECF No. 20 at 39-40. 19 “In a general defamation claim, the plaintiff must…”
Sanchez v. State of Washington, No. 3:21-cv-05915 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2022). “Under RCW 7.96.040(5) and 7.96.070(1), the Plaintiff 2 asserts that the statute of limitations was tolled for an additional 30 days, to August 21, 2021 and 3 that OUR’s response further extended the statute of limitations to September 12, 2021.”
Calkins v. City of Seattle, No. 2:23-cv-01607 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 4, 2024). “The Court need not address Defendants’ RCW 7.96.040 arguments. Attorneys’ fees 9 will be awarded consistent with RCW 4.”
Isaac M. Nsejjere, V. Caryn M. Anderton, No. 60351-9 (Wash. Ct. App. July 8, 2025). “We review CR 11 sanctions for an abuse of discretion, meaning the 2 Given our resolution of these issues, we need not address Anderton’s argument that the complaint was facially deficient because it did not comply with RCW 7.96.040. 11 No. 60351-9-II ruling was manifestly…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040(1): 1 case
Lutz v. Spokane Reg'l Health Dist., No. 2:22-cv-00028 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2023). “16 SRHD contends that Lutz has simply recited the elements of defamation and fails 17 to allege whether he has met the “timely and adequate correction or clarification” 18 requirement of RCW 7.96.040. ECF No. 20 at 39-40. 19 “In a general defamation claim, the plaintiff must…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040(1)(a): 1 case
Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co., No. 2:18-cv-00537 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020). “” RCW 7.96.040(1)(a). The UCCDA defines an 2 || “adequate” request for correction or clarification as one that: 3 (a) Is made in writing and reasonably identifies the person making the request; 4 (b) Specifies with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040(3): 1 case
Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co., No. 2:18-cv-00537 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020). “” RCW 7.96.040(1)(a). The UCCDA defines an 2 || “adequate” request for correction or clarification as one that: 3 (a) Is made in writing and reasonably identifies the person making the request; 4 (b) Specifies with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040(3)(a): 1 case
Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co., No. 2:18-cv-00537 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020). “” RCW 7.96.040(1)(a). The UCCDA defines an 2 || “adequate” request for correction or clarification as one that: 3 (a) Is made in writing and reasonably identifies the person making the request; 4 (b) Specifies with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040(4): 1 case
Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co., No. 2:18-cv-00537 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2020). “” RCW 7.96.040(1)(a). The UCCDA defines an 2 || “adequate” request for correction or clarification as one that: 3 (a) Is made in writing and reasonably identifies the person making the request; 4 (b) Specifies with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.96.040(5): 1 case
Sanchez v. State of Washington, No. 3:21-cv-05915 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2022). “Under RCW 7.96.040(5) and 7.96.070(1), the Plaintiff 2 asserts that the statute of limitations was tolled for an additional 30 days, to August 21, 2021 and 3 that OUR’s response further extended the statute of limitations to September 12, 2021.”
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.