wa-cema

Washington CEMA — Commercial Electronic Mail Act (RCW 19.190)

The subject-matter skill for Washington anti-spam matters under the Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190. It supplies the substantive law, the controlling Brown v. Old Navy construction, the elements, defenses, and fact-pattern triage for a case that turns on a commercial e-mail (or commercial text message) sent to a Washington resident with a false/misleading subject line or a misrepresented transmission path.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. These notes are drafting aids, not legal advice. Verify every citation against the current statute, rule, or opinion before filing — and note the pending 2026 amendment to RCW 19.190.020 / .040 flagged in references/cema-statute.md. See wa-fact-check and wa-law-references/references/online-sources.md.

How this skill is organized

This is a subject-matter skill. It sits alongside the procedural skills (wa-first-30-days, wa-discovery, wa-law-references, wa-hearings, the wa-draft-* scaffolders) and supplies the CEMA-specific content they delegate to. It also composes with wa-consumer-debt, which holds the broader Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) framework that a CEMA claim rides into.

wa-cema/
├── SKILL.md                  ← you are here
└── references/
    ├── cema-statute.md        operative RCW 19.190 provisions (curated)
    └── Brown-v-Old-Navy.md    Wash. Sup. Ct., Apr. 17, 2025 — the
                               controlling subject-line construction

What CEMA prohibits

CEMA reaches only messages sent for a commercial purpose — "promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease" (RCW 19.190.010(2)). Within that gate it regulates two channels:

• Commercial e-mail — RCW 19.190.020 / .030.
• Commercial text messages (SMS) — RCW 19.190.060.

The e-mail prohibition (RCW 19.190.020(1)) has two truthfulness requirements for a message sent from a Washington computer, or to an address the sender knew or had reason to know is held by a Washington resident:

• (1)(a) Transmission-path / origin: must not use a third party's internet domain name without permission, or otherwise misrepresent or obscure the point of origin or transmission path.
• (1)(b) Subject line: must not contain false or misleading information.

The controlling case — Brown v. Old Navy (Wash. 2025)

Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1 (Wash. Apr. 17, 2025) (en banc), answering a certified question from the W.D. Wash., holds that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) prohibits a commercial e-mail subject line containing any false or misleading information — not only deception about the message's commercial nature. González, J.; Madsen, J., dissenting (reading (1)(b) to reach only subject lines that conceal the e-mail's commercial purpose). Full headnote + cleaned opinion text in references/Brown-v-Old-Navy.md.

Practical effect: a fabricated discount, a false "order status" framing, or a manufactured sense of urgency in the subject line of a promotional e-mail can satisfy (1)(b) even though it says nothing false about the message being an advertisement.

Elements (subsection (1)(b) theory)

1. A commercial electronic mail message — sent for the purpose of promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease (RCW 19.190.010(2)).
2. Sent from a Washington computer OR to an address the sender knew / had reason to know is held by a Washington resident.
3. The subject line contains false or misleading information (RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)) — any such information after Brown.

(For a (1)(a) theory, swap element 3 for misrepresentation/obscuring of the origin or transmission path.)

Remedy — the per se CPA route + statutory damages

• A CEMA e-mail violation is a per se Consumer Protection Act violation (RCW 19.190.030(1), .100; ch. 19.86 RCW) — so it enters the CPA's private right of action without separately proving the five Hangman Ridge elements (see wa-consumer-debt/references/wa-consumer-protection.md).
• Statutory damages: $500 per offending message or actual damages, whichever is greater (RCW 19.190.040(1)); $1,000 (or actual) for an interactive computer service (RCW 19.190.040(2)).
• No actual-damages showing required — the injury is receiving the violating message (Brown, slip op. at 4; cf. RCW 19.86.090). This is what makes CEMA a class-action vehicle (per-message statutory damages × a class of recipients).
• CPA remedies that ride along once liability attaches: attorney's fees and costs, and the discretionary treble-damages enhancement (capped) — see the CPA reference.

Defense checklist

• Commercial-purpose gate: Is the message actually "for the purpose of promoting … for sale or lease"? Transactional, relationship, or informational messages may fall outside RCW 19.190.010(2).
• Subject line truth: Is the challenged subject line actually false or misleading (an objective, recipient-perspective inquiry)? Puffery vs. a verifiable misrepresentation.
• Washington nexus: Sent from a WA computer, or to an address the sender knew/had reason to know is a WA resident's? Litigate the "reason to know" scienter.
• CAN-SPAM preemption (15 U.S.C. § 7707(b)(1)): The federal CAN-SPAM Act preempts state spam statutes except those prohibiting falsity or deception. CEMA's falsity-based prohibitions are designed to fit that savings clause — but test the specific theory against it.
• Consent / established business relationship, standing, and class certification issues.
• Pending 2026 amendment to RCW 19.190.020 / .040 (2274-S.SL) — the operative text and damages may change; confirm as of the filing date.

Fact-pattern triage

If the facts are…	Theory / focus
Promotional blast e-mail with a fake urgency / fake discount subject	RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) under Brown (any false/misleading subject line)
Spoofed "From" / forged header / borrowed domain	RCW 19.190.020(1)(a) transmission-path theory
Marketing text messages to a WA cell number	RCW 19.190.060 commercial-text-message prohibition
Class of WA recipients, each got the same blast	$500 × recipients under RCW 19.190.040(1); class certification
Defendant invokes CAN-SPAM	§ 7707(b)(1) falsity savings-clause analysis

Composition

• wa-first-30-days — answer / counterclaim posture if you are the defense; complaint elements if you are bringing the claim.
• wa-consumer-debt — the CPA / Hangman Ridge framework and CPA remedies the per se violation feeds into.
• wa-discovery — targeting send logs, recipient lists, subject-line A/B test data, the sender's WA-resident knowledge, and consent records.
• wa-draft-motion / wa-draft-declaration — scaffolders.
• wa-law-references — civil rules, evidence, fees, online sources.
• wa-statewide-format — GR 14 formatting; wa-fact-check — citation + 2026-amendment currency check before filing.