# Washington Consumer Protection — RCW 19.16 & RCW 19.86

Washington protects consumers against debt-collection abuses through
two statutes that work together: the Collection Agency Act (**RCW
19.16**) and the Consumer Protection Act (**RCW 19.86**), connected by
a per se liability bridge in **RCW 19.16.440**.

## RCW 19.16 — Collection Agency Act

Licenses and regulates collection agencies and debt buyers operating
in Washington.

### Key sections

- **RCW 19.16.100** — Definitions. A "collection agency" includes a
  person directly or indirectly engaged in the business of collecting
  debts owed to another, and includes persons who purchase debts for
  collection (debt buyers)
- **RCW 19.16.110** — License required to conduct collection business
  in Washington. An unlicensed debt buyer cannot collect or sue in WA
- **RCW 19.16.250** — Prohibited practices (the heart of the act).
  Over 20 enumerated prohibitions, including:
  - Contacting a debtor represented by an attorney
  - Threatening unlawful action
  - Using false or deceptive statements
  - Collecting amounts not authorized by the contract or by law
  - Failing to respond to a dispute within 30 days
- **RCW 19.16.440** — Violation of the act is a per se violation of
  the Consumer Protection Act (see below)
- **RCW 19.16.450** — Attorney fees for prevailing consumer in
  collection action where collector violated the act

### Debt-buyer standing issues under RCW 19.16

A debt buyer suing in Washington must:

1. Be **licensed** as a collection agency (RCW 19.16.110) if operating
   as one — check the Washington Department of Licensing database
2. Plead and prove **standing**: chain of title from original creditor
   to the debt buyer, with each assignment documented
3. Comply with practice rules in RCW 19.16.250

A debt-buyer complaint that omits the assignment documentation
frequently becomes the factual basis for an FDCPA counterclaim
(§ 1692f(1), unauthorized collection) and a per se CPA claim.

## RCW 19.86 — Washington Consumer Protection Act

Washington's general consumer-protection statute. Prohibits "unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
the conduct of any trade or commerce" (RCW 19.86.020).

### Private right of action — RCW 19.86.090

A person injured by a violation may sue for:

- **Actual damages**
- **Treble damages** — up to the greater of three times actual
  damages, **capped at $25,000**
- **Attorney fees and costs**
- **Injunctive relief**

### The Hangman Ridge test

To establish a CPA claim, the plaintiff must prove all five elements
from *Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.*,
105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986):

1. **Unfair or deceptive act or practice**
2. **Occurring in trade or commerce**
3. **Public interest impact**
4. **Injury to plaintiff's business or property**
5. **Causation**

### Per se pathway — RCW 19.16.440

A violation of RCW 19.16 is **itself** a violation of RCW 19.86. The
plaintiff does not need to independently prove the "public interest"
element — the legislature has declared violations of the Collection
Agency Act to be per se unfair and deceptive.

This matters: element 3 (public interest) is often the hardest to
prove in ordinary CPA cases. The per se pathway shortens the chain.

### Damages in debt-defense context

Actual damages in a debt-collection CPA case commonly include:

- **Time lost** defending the action (billable at reasonable rate)
- **Emotional distress** (if provable; documented via declaration)
- **Costs** paid to oppose the collection (filing fees, transcripts,
  service of process)
- **Credit-score damage** (if the collector mis-reported the debt)
- **Attorney fees**, if any

Treble damages up to $25,000 are available to pro se plaintiffs.

## Common pleading pattern

### Counterclaim layout (debt-defense context)

```
                   V.  COUNTERCLAIM

A.  First counterclaim — Violation of the FDCPA.

    [Plead elements: debt collector, consumer debt,
     specific prohibition violated, damages.]

B.  Second counterclaim — Violation of RCW 19.16.

    [Plead specific RCW 19.16.250 subsection violated.]

C.  Third counterclaim — Violation of RCW 19.86 (CPA).

    1.  Per se CPA claim — via RCW 19.16.440, the foregoing
        RCW 19.16 violations constitute per se CPA violations.
    2.  Direct CPA claim — [unfair/deceptive act], occurring in
        trade or commerce, with public-interest impact, causing
        injury to [Defendant], with proximate causation.

D.  Relief requested:
    1.  Dismissal of plaintiff's complaint
    2.  Statutory damages up to $1,000 under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k
    3.  Actual damages
    4.  Treble damages up to $25,000 under RCW 19.86.090
    5.  Attorney fees and costs
    6.  Injunctive relief barring plaintiff from further
        collection on this alleged debt
```

## Leading Washington cases

- *Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.*,
  105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986) — five-part CPA test
- *Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash.*, 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885
  (2009) — CPA applies to third-party debt-collection letters
- *Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co.*, 138 Wn. App. 151, 159 P.3d 10 (2007) —
  collection-letter deceptive practices
- *Gray v. Suttell & Assocs.*, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (E.D. Wash. 2015)
  — debt-buyer chain-of-title and RCW 19.16

## Notes

- **Always verify the collector's WA license** with the Department
  of Licensing (dol.wa.gov) before pleading RCW 19.16.110
- **Three-year SOL** on CPA claims (RCW 19.86.120) — runs from the
  date of the violation
- Washington Attorney General can also enforce RCW 19.86 independently
  of private actions; referrals at atg.wa.gov