Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.04.050 (2025)
False, misleading, deceptive advertising
✓ 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
It shall be unlawful for any person to publish, disseminate or display, or cause directly or indirectly, to be published, disseminated or displayed in any manner or by any means, including solicitation or dissemination by mail, telephone, electronic communication, or door-to-door contacts, any false, deceptive or misleading advertising, with knowledge of the facts which render the advertising false, deceptive or misleading, for any business, trade or commercial purpose or for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the public to purchase, consume, lease, dispose of, utilize or sell any property or service, or to enter into any obligation or transaction relating thereto: PROVIDED, That nothing in this section shall apply to any radio or television broadcasting station which broadcasts, or to any publisher, printer or distributor of any newspaper, magazine, billboard or other advertising medium who publishes, prints or distributes, such advertising in good faith without knowledge of its false, deceptive or misleading character.
Notes:
Severability—1961 c 189: "If any provision of this act is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the act and the applicability thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby." [ 1961 c 189 s 5.]
Highway advertising control act of 1961, Scenic Vistas Act of 1971: Chapter 47.42 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1973–1997 · leading case: Phillips v. King Cnty., 943 P.2d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Phillips v. King Cnty., 943 P.2d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “[5] The County states in its brief for this appeal that this is commonly done, citing King County Code §§ 9.04.050 and 9.04.110. Brief of Respondent King County at 26, n.”
Hockley v. Hargitt, 510 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1973). “Plaintiff’s own affidavit alleged that the advertising and franchises are fraudulent, false, misleading and deceptive in violation of the Consumer Protection Act and in violation of RCW 9.04.050 and that he has incurred substantial damage.”
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.