Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.54.330 (2026)

Electrology and tattooing—Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 70.54.320, 70.54.340, and 70.54.350 unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Electrologist" means a person who practices the business of electrology for a fee.
(2) "Electrology" means the process by which hair is permanently removed through the utilization of solid needle/probe electrode epilation, including thermolysis, being of shortwave, high frequency type, and including electrolysis, being of galvanic type, or a combination of both which is accomplished by a superimposed or sequential blend.
(3) "Tattoo artist" means a person who practices the business of tattooing for a fee.
(4) "Tattooing" means the indelible mark, figure, or decorative design introduced by insertion of nontoxic dyes or pigments into or under the subcutaneous portion of the skin upon the body of a live human being for cosmetic or figurative purposes.
[ 2001 c 194 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2016–2016 · leading case: Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification, 371 P.3d 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification, 371 P.3d 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “¶15 Chester next argues that the definition section of RCW 70.54.330 is an independent basis for finding the respondents negligent per se.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 70.54.330(4): 1 case
Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification, 371 P.3d 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶15 Chester next argues that the definition section of RCW 70.54.330 is an independent basis for finding the respondents negligent per se.”
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.