State Law
Washington's Telephone Solicitation Statute and CEMA for Texts
What are Washington's telemarketing and text-message laws?
Short answerCalls fall under RCW 80.36.390: no solicitation received before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m., identification within 30 seconds, a one-year do-not-call on request, and no calls to numbers on the federal registry. A person aggrieved by repeated violations recovers at least $1,000 per violation plus attorney fees. Texts fall under the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA): a commercial text to a Washington resident's mobile number is prohibited unless the recipient clearly and affirmatively consented in advance (RCW 19.190.060, .070). A violation is a Consumer Protection Act claim worth $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for suits filed on or after 11 June 2026. The figure was $500 before that date.
On this page
Washington does not have one mini-TCPA. It has three statutes that matter to an outbound team, written decades apart: RCW 80.36.390 for telephone solicitation calls, chapter 19.158 RCW for registered commercial telephone solicitors, and the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (chapter 19.190 RCW), which despite its name is also Washington's commercial text-message law. All three plug into the state Consumer Protection Act.
Calls: RCW 80.36.390
The calling statute applies to unsolicited calls by commercial and nonprofit organisations that encourage a purchase or solicit donations. Calls responding to the called party's own request or inquiry (including about something they bought in the previous 12 months), calls by nonprofits or membership organisations to their own members, polling and business-to-business calls are excluded (subsection (1)(b)).
| Provision | Requirement |
|---|---|
| RCW 80.36.390(3) | Identify yourself, the organisation and the purpose of the call within 30 seconds. |
| RCW 80.36.390(6) | End the call within 10 seconds of being asked to. |
| RCW 80.36.390(7) | On a do-not-call request, say the number will be removed for at least a year, end within 10 seconds, make no further solicitation to that number for at least one year, and do not sell or share the contact details. |
| RCW 80.36.390(8) | No call received before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. at the recipient's local time. |
| RCW 80.36.390(9) | No solicitation to a number on the federal Do Not Call Registry. |
| RCW 80.36.390(10) | No solicitation that violates 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1), the federal ban on misleading caller ID. |
| RCW 80.36.390(13) | Repeated violations: at least $1,000 per violation, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. |
Two companion rules sit next to it. RCW 80.36.400 bans using an automatic dialing and announcing device (autodialer plus recorded or artificial voice, voicemail drops included) for commercial solicitation, extends liability to anyone who knowingly assists the transmission, and gives actual damages or $1,000 per violation. And chapter 19.158 RCW requires commercial telephone solicitors that are not excluded to register with the Department of Licensing (19.158.050), repeats the 8pm cutoff and one-year do-not-call rule (19.158.110), makes an unconfirmed phone sale cancellable (19.158.120), and carries civil penalties of $500 to $2,000 per violation (19.158.140).
Fee-shifting is mandatory here
Florida's fee provision is what made its statute a litigation engine. RCW 80.36.390(13) goes further on paper: the court shall award fees to a prevailing plaintiff, on top of a $1,000 floor that is double Florida's $500. The gate is that the plaintiff must be aggrieved by repeated violations, so a single stray call is not the exposure. A second call after a do-not-call request is.
Texts: the Commercial Electronic Mail Act
CEMA was written for spam email in 1998 and extended to text messages in 2003. The text rule is short. Under RCW 19.190.060(1), no person conducting business in Washington may initiate, or assist in transmitting, a commercial text message to a number assigned to a Washington resident for mobile service. A commercial text is one sent to promote property, goods or services for sale or lease (19.190.010(3)).
There are exactly two exceptions in RCW 19.190.070(1): a carrier texting its own subscribers at no charge, and a text to a subscriber who clearly and affirmatively consented in advance. The calling statute's existing-customer and inquiry carve-outs do not appear in CEMA, so an existing customer relationship is not, on the text, a substitute for consent.
A violation is a per se Consumer Protection Act violation (19.190.060(2)). In Wright v. Lyft, Inc., a 2017 putative class action over a single referral text, the Washington Supreme Court held that CEMA's damages section is not a separate cause of action, but that it supplies the injury and causation elements of a CPA claim as a matter of law. The recipient does not have to prove the text cost them anything. RCW 19.86.090 adds costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.
The June 2026 damages cut
ESHB 2274 (Chapter 135, Laws of 2026) reduced the recipient's damages in RCW 19.190.040(1) from $500 to $100, or actual damages if greater. It took effect on 11 June 2026 and, by its own section 3, applies to every cause of action commenced on or after that date regardless of when it arose. Any page still quoting $500 per text as the current Washington figure is out of date.
Lower is not low. The attorney-fee route through the CPA is untouched, and the prohibition itself did not change. The amendment changed what a claim is worth, not what is allowed.
It stacks with the federal TCPA
All of this applies on top of federal law. A marketing text to a Washington mobile without consent can support a federal TCPA claim and a CEMA-based CPA claim together, and a Washington call to a registered number can breach both the federal do-not-call rules and RCW 80.36.390(9).
What to actually do
- Texts. Treat clear, affirmative, advance consent as the only way to text a Washington mobile for marketing, and keep the record of it.
- Schedule. Stop calls at 8:00 p.m. recipient time for Washington numbers, an hour earlier than the federal window. See calling hours by state.
- Suppression. Keep do-not-call requests for at least a year, scrub the federal registry, and never pass a suppressed number to another company.
- Scripts. Name, organisation and purpose inside 30 seconds; hang up within 10 seconds when asked.
- Registration. Check with counsel whether chapter 19.158 RCW requires you to register before calling Washington purchasers.
NumberBroom handles none of those directly. It does not scrub the federal Do Not Call Registry or any internal list, does not capture or store consent, does not send texts and does not register anyone. What it does is help you know what is on the list before any of that: upload a CSV and each number gets carrier-level validation (line type, carrier and activity score, so you can see which rows are mobile numbers) and a TCPA litigator screen in one job, with litigator matches removed and counted. $0.20 per number with lower rates above 2,000 rows, a $5 minimum and no subscription. Check a number free, or see pricing.
Frequently asked questions
What are the damages for an unwanted marketing text in Washington?
Under RCW 19.190.040(1), damages to the recipient of a commercial text sent in violation of CEMA are $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater. Until 2026 the figure was $500. The amendment (2026 c 135) applies to every suit commenced on or after 11 June 2026, regardless of when the text was sent, so a text from 2025 sued on today is worth $100, not $500.
The claim itself runs through the Consumer Protection Act. In Wright v. Lyft (2017) the Washington Supreme Court held that CEMA's damages section creates no stand-alone cause of action, but that it establishes the injury and causation elements of a CPA claim as a matter of law. RCW 19.86.090 then adds the costs of suit and a reasonable attorney's fee.
Is there an existing-customer exception for texts?
Not in the text of the statute. RCW 19.190.070(1) lists two situations that are not violations: a carrier texting its own subscribers at no cost, and a text to a subscriber who clearly and affirmatively consented in advance. The existing-customer and prior-inquiry carve-outs in the calling statute, RCW 80.36.390(1)(b), are not repeated in CEMA. Build Washington SMS on documented advance consent.
What are the damages for telemarketing calls?
Under RCW 80.36.390(13), a person aggrieved by repeated violations can sue in superior court, and the court shall award at least $1,000 for each individual violation and, if the plaintiff prevails, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Separately, each violation carries a fine of up to $1,000 (subsection (11)), and a violation is a per se unfair or deceptive act under the Consumer Protection Act (subsection (12)).
Prerecorded commercial calls have their own ban in RCW 80.36.400, with actual damages or $1,000 per violation, whichever is greater.
How long must a Washington do-not-call request be honoured?
At least one year. Under RCW 80.36.390(7), when a called party asks not to be called again, the solicitor must tell them they will be removed for at least a year, end the call within 10 seconds, make no further solicitation to that number for at least a year, and not sell or give their details to anyone else. RCW 19.158.110(3) says the same for registered commercial telephone solicitors. Separately, subsection (9) bars calls to numbers on the federal registry outright.
Do I need to register to telemarket into Washington?
Possibly. RCW 19.158.050(1) requires a commercial telephone solicitor to register with the Department of Licensing before doing business in the state, and soliciting purchasers located in Washington counts as doing business there. But RCW 19.158.020(2)(b) excludes twenty-two categories, including isolated transactions, noncommercial callers, businesses calling only their prior purchasers, and several licensed or regulated industries. Whether you fall inside is a question for counsel, and NumberBroom cannot register you.
- RCW 80.36.390 -- Telephone solicitation (Washington Legislature)
- RCW 80.36.400 -- Automatic dialing and announcing device (Washington Legislature)
- Chapter 19.158 RCW -- Commercial telephone solicitation (Washington Legislature)
- Chapter 19.190 RCW -- Commercial Electronic Mail Act (Washington Legislature)
- ESHB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026 -- CEMA damages amendment (session law)
- RCW 19.86.090 -- Consumer Protection Act civil action (Washington Legislature)
- Wright v. Lyft, Inc., No. 94162-9 (Wash. 2017) -- slip opinion (Washington Courts)