Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.230 (2026)

Unlawful sale of subscription television services

✓ 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 guilty of unlawful sale of subscription television services if, with intent to avoid payment or to facilitate the avoidance of payment of the lawful charge for any subscription television service, he or she, without authorization from the subscription television service company:
(a) Publishes or advertises for sale a plan for a device that is designed in whole or in part to receive subscription television or services offered for sale by the subscription television service company, regardless of whether the programming or services are encoded, filtered, scrambled, or otherwise made unintelligible;
(b) Advertises for sale or lease a device or kit for a device designed in whole or in part to receive subscription television services offered for sale by the subscription television service company, regardless of whether the programming or services are encoded, filtered, scrambled, or otherwise made unintelligible; or
(c) Manufactures, imports into the state of Washington, distributes, sells, leases, or offers for sale or lease a device, plan, or kit for a device designed in whole or in part to receive subscription television services offered for sale by the subscription television service company, regardless of whether the programming or services are encoded, filtered, scrambled, or otherwise made unintelligible.
(2) Unlawful sale of subscription television services is a class C felony.
[ 1995 c 92 s 3; 1985 c 430 s 2.]

Notes:

Severability1985 c 430: See note following RCW 9A.56.220.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: State v. Tvedt, 153 Wash. 2d 705 (Wash. 2005).
State v. Tvedt, 153 Wash. 2d 705 (Wash. 2005). “See RCW 9A.56.230 -.310. Importantly, the legislature, not the code reviser, placed robbery in chapter 9A.”
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.