Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.73
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars, and a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation.
[ 2011 c 336 s 324; 1977 ex.s. c 363 s 2; 1967 ex.s. c 93 s 4.]

Notes:

Severability—1967 ex.s. c 93: See note following RCW 9.73.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Wanrow, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wanrow, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 8× “73.030 through RCW 9.73.080, [9] i.e., the recording is not unlawful under RCW 9.”
Kearney v. Kearney, 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “050 merely prohibits introducing illegal recordings into evidence and not the offering of the tapes; and (3) RCW 9.73.060 4 does not impose civil liability on those who violate the spirit and purpose of the act.”
Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC, 179 Wash. App. 41 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the…”
State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808 (Wash. 1986). “32 We further note that pursuant to RCW 9.73.060, a party may sue for damages because of an unlawful intercept.”
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “080) and civil actions for damages (RCW 9.73.060) — cannot be applied to a federal agent who has acted in the course of his duties and in conformance to federal law.”
State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.73.060 and .080. Thus, the Washington privacy act significantly expands the minimum standards of the federal statute and offers a greater degree of protection to Washington citizens.”
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 9.73.060. Information obtained in violation of RCW 9.”
In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Plaintiff Sandstrom’s Claim under the Washington Privacy Act Plaintiffs assert a claim under Washington’s Privacy Act, Wash. Rev.Code § 9.73.060. SCAC ¶ 113(ee).”
Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014). “050; create a civil action for damages, RCW 9.73.060; exempt certain common carriers and 911 calls, RCW 9.”
State v. Fowler, 139 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Moreover, RCW 9.73.060 provides that any person "who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent," violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages.”
State v. Modica, 186 P.3d 1062 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 9.73.060. In addition to allowing for recording of the calls, the statute institutes a series of safeguards to protect the rights of the inmate.”
Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Dep't, 829 P.2d 1061 (Wash. 1992). “20 See RCW 9.73.060, .230(11). 21 State ex rel. Faulk v.”
Show all 40 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.