Washington State's Consumer Electronic Mail Act works on emails too
- Peter Schneider
- Feb 3
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 4
Earlier I wrote about Washington State's Consumer Electronic Mail Act RCW 19.190's application to text messages, and I mentioned it works on emails also.
What's prohibited
RCW 19.190.202(1): No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:
(a) Uses a third party's internet domain name without permission of the third party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail message; or
(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.
So faking the origin of emails, or putting false or misleading information in the subject line. Let's look at an example lawsuit Brinton v. Vivint Inc in the Western District of Washington. Nathan Brinton alleged:
Defendants advertised, initiated, or assisted in the transmission of over twenty misleading and unsolicited bulk commercial email solicitations. These misleading and unpermitted email messages were sent to email addresses held by Plaintiff Nathan Brinton, a Washington resident.
They spammed Nathan's email.
From August 2022 through the present, Defendants have initiated transmission, conspired to initiate transmission, or assisted in the transmission of unsolicited, unpermitted, or misleading commercial electronic mail messages, otherwise known as "spam" to Plaintiff's email addresses.
The emails deceived or hid their true origin, and used false or dishonest "from" lines, such as indicating the email originated from spoofed or nonexistent email addresses.
The spam email messages Defendants caused to be sent misrepresented or obscured information about the point of origin and transmission path of the spam email. For example, one of the emails was sent from mis75.ski35.tqu.healthcareszone.org. This domain is privately registered using Cosmotown as a proxy to hide the owner's identity. This makes it impossible for Plaintiff to determine the identity of the entity sending the emails.
For example,
One of the spam message received by Mr. Brinton, for example, used the "from:" line "plantat1Onel-lnturon@endurablehOckey.fishabidingused.com" It is impossible to tell from this nonsensical email address who sent the email, and any message to this address would most likely be returned.
This is a testable assertion, but certainly could be true. But a more easily provable allegation probably is the spoofed or forged source of the emails:
Defendants' actions caused spam emails to be sent to email addresses belonging to Mr. Brinton, a Washington resident. Plaintiff clicked through the link in the emails and was sent to a landing page to buy Vivint's products.
I don't claim this lawsuit has merit or is a well done example of using CEMA to bring junk emailers to account because I don't know, but it is a starting point in learning more.
There is another nice nugget in this case related to attorney fees when you read Brinton v. Vivint Inc., 3:23-cv-06105-TMC, 7 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2024). As I noted in my previous CEMA article, there is an odd wrinkle where CEMA does not have a private right of action, but a CEMA violation is per se violation of Washington State's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Washington State Supreme Court has held that sending a text message in violation of CEMA is a per-se violation of the states’ Consumer Protection Act statute RCW 19.86, meaning it automatically satisfies all five elements. “In fact, damages for CEMA violations are automatic.” Wright v. Lyft, Inc., 189 Wash. 2d 718, (Wash. 2017).
The CPA claim opens the door to attorney fees: “[R]easonable attorneys fees are recoverable under RCW 19.86.090 upon a finding of a Consumer Protection Act violation.” Mason v. Mortgage America, Inc., 114 Wn. 2d 842, 855 (Wash. 1990).
Attorney fees open the door to an attorney taking your case!
Would you like a free case review? Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!
Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.
The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.