Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269 (2026)

"Professional gambling."

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is engaged in "professional gambling" for the purposes of this chapter when:
(a) Acting other than as a player or in the manner authorized by this chapter, the person knowingly engages in conduct which materially aids any form of gambling activity; or
(b) Acting other than in a manner authorized by this chapter, the person pays a fee to participate in a card game, contest of chance, lottery, or other gambling activity; or
(c) Acting other than as a player or in the manner authorized by this chapter, the person knowingly accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any other person whereby he or she participates or is to participate in the proceeds of gambling activity; or
(d) The person engages in bookmaking; or
(e) The person conducts a lottery; or
(f) The person violates RCW 9.46.039.
(2) Conduct under subsection (1)(a) of this section, except as exempted under this chapter, includes but is not limited to conduct directed toward the creation or establishment of the particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, toward the acquisition or maintenance of premises, paraphernalia, equipment or apparatus therefor, toward the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the actual conduct of the playing phases thereof, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording phases, or toward any other phase of its operation. If a person having substantial proprietary or other authoritative control over any premises shall permit the premises to be used with the person's knowledge for the purpose of conducting gambling activity other than gambling activities authorized by this chapter, and acting other than as a player, and the person permits such to occur or continue or makes no effort to prevent its occurrence or continuation, the person shall be considered as being engaged in professional gambling: PROVIDED, That the proprietor of a bowling establishment who awards prizes obtained from player contributions, to players successfully knocking down pins upon the contingency of identifiable pins being placed in a specified position or combination of positions, as designated by the posted rules of the bowling establishment, where the proprietor does not participate in the proceeds of the "prize fund" shall not be construed to be engaging in "professional gambling" within the meaning of this chapter: PROVIDED FURTHER, That the books and records of the games shall be open to public inspection.
[ 1997 c 78 s 1; 1996 c 252 s 2; 1987 c 4 s 18. Formerly RCW 9.46.020(17).]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2009–2020 · leading case: Internet Cmty. v. State Gambling Com'n, 238 P.3d 1163 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Internet Cmty. v. State Gambling Com'n, 238 P.3d 1163 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 6× “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received "gambling information" under RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 169 Wash. 2d 687 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 5× “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received “gambling information” under RCW 9.”
State v. Hall, 230 P.3d 1048 (Wash. 2010). “055 (homicide by abuse); RCW 9.46.0269 (gambling activity); RCW 26.”
State v. Hall, 168 Wash. 2d 726 (Wash. 2010). “055 (homicide by abuse); RCW 9.46.0269 (gambling activity); RCW 26.”
Rousso v. State, 204 P.3d 243 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" RCW 9.46.0269(1)(a). ¶ 6 There is no dispute that both Rousso and the operators of the Internet card room that Rousso favors, Pokerstars, would be engaged in the transmission and receipt of gambling information under the amended act, were Rousso to play poker for money, after…”
Rousso v. State, 149 Wash. App. 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” RCW 9.46.0269(l)(a). ¶6 There is no dispute that both Rousso and the operators of the Internet card room that Rousso favors, Poker-stars, would be engaged in the transmission and receipt of gambling information under the amended act, were Rousso to play poker for money, after…”
Internet Comm. & Ent. Corp. v. State, 201 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “221 (describing elements of second degree professional gambling and designating that crime as a class C felony); RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “See RCW 9.46.0269 (defining “professional gambling”); RCW 9.”
Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). “Plaintiffs base this theory on RCW 9.46.0269(1), which defines 7 “professional gambling,” in part, as “knowingly engag[ing] in conduct which materially aids any 8 form of gambling activity” or “knowingly .”
State Of Washington v. Nicholas Jenkins (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “com used in 2007, as well as Jenkins' idea for a "monthly subscription" business model, did not constitute "professional gambling" as defined in RCW 9.46.0269; (2) RCW 9.46.0213 and its amendments violated both the "subject-in-title" and the "single subject" requirements of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(1) — 3 cases
Internet Cmty. v. State Gambling Com'n, 238 P.3d 1163 (Wash. 2010). “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received "gambling information" under RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 169 Wash. 2d 687 (Wash. 2010). “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received “gambling information” under RCW 9.”
Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). “Plaintiffs base this theory on RCW 9.46.0269(1), which defines 7 “professional gambling,” in part, as “knowingly engag[ing] in conduct which materially aids any 8 form of gambling activity” or “knowingly .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(1)(a) — 3 cases
Rousso v. State, 204 P.3d 243 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “" RCW 9.46.0269(1)(a). ¶ 6 There is no dispute that both Rousso and the operators of the Internet card room that Rousso favors, Pokerstars, would be engaged in the transmission and receipt of gambling information under the amended act, were Rousso to play poker for money, after…”
Internet Comm. & Ent. Corp. v. State, 201 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “221 (describing elements of second degree professional gambling and designating that crime as a class C felony); RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 9.46.0269 (defining “professional gambling”); RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(1)(b) — 1 case
Rousso v. State, 204 P.3d 243 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “" RCW 9.46.0269(1)(a). ¶ 6 There is no dispute that both Rousso and the operators of the Internet card room that Rousso favors, Pokerstars, would be engaged in the transmission and receipt of gambling information under the amended act, were Rousso to play poker for money, after…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(1)(d) — 3 cases
Internet Cmty. v. State Gambling Com'n, 238 P.3d 1163 (Wash. 2010). “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received "gambling information" under RCW 9.”
Internet Comm. & Ent. Corp. v. State, 201 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “221 (describing elements of second degree professional gambling and designating that crime as a class C felony); RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 9.46.0269 (defining “professional gambling”); RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(1)(e) — 1 case
Internet Cmty. v. State Gambling Com'n, 238 P.3d 1163 (Wash. 2010). “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received "gambling information" under RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(l)(a) — 2 cases
Rousso v. State, 149 Wash. App. 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “” RCW 9.46.0269(l)(a). ¶6 There is no dispute that both Rousso and the operators of the Internet card room that Rousso favors, Poker-stars, would be engaged in the transmission and receipt of gambling information under the amended act, were Rousso to play poker for money, after…”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 9.46.0269 (defining “professional gambling”); RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(l)(b) — 1 case
Rousso v. State, 149 Wash. App. 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “” RCW 9.46.0269(l)(a). ¶6 There is no dispute that both Rousso and the operators of the Internet card room that Rousso favors, Poker-stars, would be engaged in the transmission and receipt of gambling information under the amended act, were Rousso to play poker for money, after…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.0269(l)(e) — 1 case
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 169 Wash. 2d 687 (Wash. 2010). “0237, that Betcha transmitted and received “gambling information” under RCW 9.”
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.