Consumer Protection Act

Key Takeaways

• Washington's Consumer Protection Act is chapter 19.86 RCW, and its core prohibition in RCW 19.86.020 declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce unlawful.
• The Attorney General may sue to restrain unlawful conduct under RCW 19.86.080, and a separately injured private party may sue for damages under RCW 19.86.090.
• A private plaintiff recovers actual damages plus the costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee; the court may increase the award up to three times actual damages, but that increase is capped at $25,000 for a RCW 19.86.020 violation.
• Consumer Protection Act liability is separate from real estate license discipline, so the same conduct can produce a Department of Licensing case and a civil suit at the same time.

What It Means

The Consumer Protection Act is Washington's general statute against unfair business conduct, codified as chapter 19.86 RCW. Its heart is one sentence in RCW 19.86.020: unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful. The Act does not contain a list of forbidden real estate practices, and that breadth is deliberate. It is written to reach conduct that nobody thought to prohibit by name when the statute was passed.

For a licensee, the Act matters because it opens a second front. Real estate license law is enforced by the Department of Licensing against the license itself, and the outcome is discipline. The Consumer Protection Act is enforced by the Attorney General or by the person who was hurt, and the outcome is money: actual damages, the costs of suit, a reasonable attorney's fee, and possibly an increased award on top. One piece of misconduct, such as concealing a known defect or misstating a material term, can produce a disciplinary file and a civil lawsuit at the same time, and neither proceeding waits for the other. That doubling of exposure is why the Act appears in a pre-license course at all.

How It Works in Washington

RCW 19.86.020 supplies the prohibition and two other sections supply the teeth. RCW 19.86.080(1) lets the Attorney General bring an action in the name of the state to restrain and prevent conduct declared unlawful, and RCW 19.86.080(2) lets the court order money or property restored to the people who lost it. RCW 19.86.090 opens the private path: a person injured in their business or property may sue for actual damages together with the costs of the suit including a reasonable attorney's fee, and the court may in its discretion increase the award up to three times actual damages, provided that the increase for a RCW 19.86.020 violation may not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars.

Two boundaries matter. RCW 19.86.093 sets out how a private claimant establishes that a practice is injurious to the public interest, which is an element of the claim rather than a rhetorical flourish. RCW 19.86.170 provides that actions specifically permitted within the statutory authority granted to a regulatory board established in Title 18 RCW are not violations of the chapter, which is narrower than it first sounds: holding a real estate license is not the same as being specifically permitted to do the act complained of. Some statutes remove the argument entirely. RCW 19.146.100 declares any violation of the Mortgage Broker Practices Act to be an unfair or deceptive act in violation of RCW 19.86.020, so the Consumer Protection Act claim follows automatically once the underlying violation is proven. Chapter 18.85 RCW, the real estate license law, contains no equivalent provision, so a claim against a broker must be proven on its own elements.

Example

Alicia Tran, a broker in Vancouver, lists a home she knows has a failed septic system. She pulls the failed inspection out of the file and tells the selling broker the system passed. The buyers, the Okonkwos, close at $415,000 and learn the truth six weeks later. A replacement system quotes at $18,000.

Two proceedings can now run in parallel. The Department of Licensing can discipline Alicia under RCW 18.85 for Unprofessional Conduct. Separately, the Okonkwos can sue under RCW 19.86.090, where their actual damages are the $18,000 repair. Three times actual damages would be $54,000, but the increase over actual damages cannot exceed $25,000 for a RCW 19.86.020 violation, so the most the court can award as damages is $18,000 plus $25,000, or $43,000, and even that increase is discretionary. On top of the damages they recover the costs of suit and a reasonable attorney's fee, which in a dispute this size can approach the damages themselves. See Treble Damages for how the enhancement is calculated.

Common Mistakes and Exam Traps

• The Consumer Protection Act is not part of the real estate license law. Discipline under RCW 18.85 and a chapter 19.86 RCW lawsuit are separate tracks, and neither one substitutes for the other.
• Treble damages are discretionary rather than automatic, and the increase for a RCW 19.86.020 violation cannot exceed $25,000. An answer that simply multiplies actual damages by three with no cap is wrong.
• Costs and a reasonable attorney's fee are recoverable by statute, which is frequently what makes a modest claim worth filing at all.
• Public interest impact is an element of a private claim under RCW 19.86.093. A purely private disagreement between two parties may not support a Consumer Protection Act claim even when someone behaved badly.