wa-cpa

Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA / UDAP) — RCW 19.86

The matter-neutral subject-matter skill for Washington's general unfair-or-deceptive-acts statute, the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. It supplies the CPA elements, standards, per se pathways, remedies, and limits that apply to any UDAP claim — consumer or business — and is the canonical CPA home that the narrower bundles (wa-consumer-debt, wa-commercial-disputes, wa-cema, landlord-tenant) compose with for their per se hooks.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. These notes are drafting aids, not legal advice. Verify every statute and case citation against current authority before filing. 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, the wa-draft-* scaffolders) and supplies the CPA-specific content they delegate to.

wa-cpa/
├── SKILL.md                  ← you are here
└── references/
    ├── cpa-framework.md       the RCW 19.86 elements, standards,
                               remedies, SOL, exemption, AG service
    └── key-cases.md           the CPA case catalog

The verbatim statute is in the corpus at wa-law-references/references/wa-rcw-debt/RCW-19_86.md — cite that for current text (thin-skill convention).

The claim in one screen

A private CPA claim has five Hangman Ridge elements (105 Wn.2d 778 (1986)):

1. Unfair OR deceptive act or practice (independent prongs — Klem).
2. In trade or commerce (RCW 19.86.010(2)).
3. Public interest impact (codified at RCW 19.86.093).
4. Injury to plaintiff's business or property (not personal injury alone; can be modest — Panag).
5. Causation — proximate link (Indoor Billboard).

Two ways to satisfy element 1 + shortcut elements 2–3:

• Per se: the predicate statute declares a violation to be a per se CPA violation (CEMA RCW 19.190.030; Collection Agency Act RCW 19.16.440; etc.). Establishes the unfair/deceptive act and supplies the public interest via RCW 19.86.093(1). The plaintiff then proves only injury + causation.
• Independent (non-per-se): prove deception (capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public — no intent required, Panag) or unfairness (FTC standard — substantial injury, not reasonably avoidable, not outweighed by benefits — Klem), plus the capacity-to-injure-others public interest (RCW 19.86.093(3)).

See references/cpa-framework.md for each element in depth.

Remedies (RCW 19.86.090)

• Actual damages + injunctive relief.
• Mandatory costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff (Nordstrom v. Tampourlos).
• Discretionary treble damages, capped at $25,000 for a § .020 violation; available to pro se plaintiffs.
• District-court option (actual damages to the RCW 3.66.020 limit, same treble cap).
• 4-year SOL (RCW 19.86.120). Serve the Attorney General with the initial pleading whenever injunctive relief is requested (RCW 19.86.095).

When to reach for this skill vs. a bundle

• Reach for wa-cpa when the matter is a standalone UDAP claim — deceptive advertising, a misrepresented consumer transaction, an unfair business practice — that does not sit inside one of the existing bundles, or when you need the general CPA framework (elements, public interest, remedies) regardless of subject matter.
• Compose with a bundle for its per se hook and subject-specific law:
  • wa-consumer-debt — RCW 19.16 Collection Agency Act per se (RCW 19.16.440).
  • wa-cema — RCW 19.190 anti-spam per se (RCW 19.190.030).
  • wa-commercial-disputes — B2B CPA, including the public-interest analysis for essentially private commercial disputes.
  • wa-landlord-tenant — RLTA-based deceptive/unfair practices.

Defense checklist (if you represent the defendant)

• Public interest: is this an essentially private dispute with no capacity to injure others (RCW 19.86.093(3) / Hangman Ridge / Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy factors)?
• Injury / causation: is the claimed injury to business or property (not personal/emotional alone), and is it proximately caused by the challenged act (Indoor Billboard)?
• Trade or commerce: for a professional defendant, does the claim go to competence/strategy (outside the CPA) rather than the entrepreneurial aspects (Short v. Demopolis)?
• Regulated-industry exemption (RCW 19.86.170) — is the specific challenged action actually required/permitted by a regulator (narrow)?
• SOL — outside the 4-year window (RCW 19.86.120)?

Composition

• wa-first-30-days — pleading the CPA claim or counterclaim; answer posture and affirmative defenses if defending.
• wa-discovery — targeting the pattern/other-customer evidence that proves public interest, the deceptive materials, and causation.
• wa-draft-motion / wa-draft-declaration — scaffolders.
• wa-law-references — civil rules, evidence (capacity-to-deceive is an objective question; pattern evidence under ER 404(b) limits), fees, online sources; the verbatim RCW 19.86 chapter.
• wa-statewide-format — GR 14; wa-fact-check — citation + good-law verification before filing.