Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA)

Consumers can find themselves at a competitive disadvantage when dealing with businesses.  To protect consumers from businesses who use unlawful means to capitalize on this disparity, legislatures across the country have been crafting and passing consumer protection law.  Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) protects consumers from “ ‘[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce’ are unlawful.”  Shields v. Morgan Fin., Inc., 130 Wn. App. 750, 755, 125 P.3d 164 (Div. 1 2005) (quoting RCW 19.86.020).  A consumer may bring a claim under the Washington CPA for any “act or practice that has the capacity to deceive substantial portions of the public, or an unfair or deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in violation of public interest.” Young v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 9 Wn.App.2d 26, 35, 442 P.3d 5 (Div. 3 2019).To establish a violation of the CPA, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice on the part of the defendant had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public, (2) that the defendant committed such an act in the conduct or trade of commerce, (3) that the acts complained of effect the public interest, (4) that the plaintiff was injured, (5) by such a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 785-93, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).  “The definition of ‘unfair’ and ‘deceptive’ must be objective to prevent every consumer complaint from becoming a triable violation of the act.”  Behnke v. Ahrens, 172 Wn. App. 281, 293, 294 P.3d 729 (Div. 1 2012).  To that end, the Washington Supreme Court has held that a practice is unfair or deceptive under the CPA where it is likely to mislead a “reasonable” or “ordinary” consumer.  Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co., 166 Wn.2d 27, 50, 204 P.3d 885 (2009).  The factors relevant to whether an allegedly deceptive act sufficiently affected a public interest are:(1) Were the alleged acts committed in the course of defendant's business? (2) Are the acts part of a pattern or generalized course of conduct? (3) Were repeated acts committed prior to the act involving plaintiff? (4) Is there a real and substantial potential for repetition of defendant's conduct after the act involving plaintiff? (5) If the act complained of involved a single transaction, were many consumers affected or likely to be affected by it?Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790.  Every element must be proven by the plaintiff, and the court will not assume that any of the elements have been satisfied. If each and every element is proven, there are significant damages that can be awarded, including multiplying the actual damages by three and awarding attorney’s fees and costs.