Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Roxann Brown and Michelle Smith filed a lawsuit against Old Navy, alleging that the retailer sent them e-mails with subject lines containing false or misleading information about the duration of promotions, in violation of the "Commercial Electronic Mail Act" (CEMA). The plaintiffs claimed that Old Navy's e-mails falsely suggested that promotions were ending or were limited-time offers, which were extended beyond the specified time limits.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington reviewed the case and certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). The federal court sought clarification on whether the statute prohibits any false or misleading information in the subject lines of commercial e-mails or only false or misleading information about the commercial nature of the message.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the certified question de novo and concluded that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) prohibits the use of any false or misleading information in the subject line of a commercial e-mail, not just information about the commercial nature of the message. The court emphasized that the statute's plain language is clear and unambiguous, and it does not require judicial construction. The court also noted that the statute's focus on subject lines is appropriate and does not lead to absurd results. The court held that mere puffery, which includes subjective statements, opinions, and hyperbole, is not prohibited by the statute. The court's decision clarifies that commercial e-mails sent to Washington residents must have truthful and non-misleading subject lines. View "Brown v. Old Navy, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between several plaintiffs, who are independent distributors for Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., and the defendants, which include Nu Skin and its affiliates. The plaintiffs allege that Nu Skin operates an unlawful pyramid scheme, making it difficult for distributors to profit from product sales alone, and instead requiring them to recruit new distributors to earn money. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Spokane County Superior Court, asserting claims under various state and federal laws.In the lower courts, Nu Skin filed a motion to dismiss the case for improper venue based on a forum-selection clause in the parties' contract, which designated Utah as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution. The Spokane County Superior Court denied Nu Skin's motion, ruling that the case did not fall within the contractual definition of a "Dispute" and that Spokane County was a proper venue. Nu Skin sought reconsideration, which was also denied, and then moved for discretionary review.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed whether CR 12(b)(3) is the correct procedural mechanism to enforce a contractual forum-selection clause designating a non-Washington forum. The court held that CR 12(b)(3) is not the appropriate procedure for such enforcement. The court reasoned that the plain language of CR 12(b)(3) authorizes dismissal only when venue is "improper" according to Washington's venue statutes and court rules, which do not account for contractual forum-selection clauses. Therefore, a forum-selection clause cannot render a statutorily authorized venue "improper" under CR 12(b)(3). The court affirmed the denial of Nu Skin's motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Raab v. Nu Skin Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Tracy Hall filed a class action lawsuit against Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreen Co., alleging that the company deceptively marketed a cough medicine containing dextromethorphan hydrobromide as "nondrowsy," despite drowsiness being a known side effect. The FDA regulates over-the-counter medicines, including antitussives, but does not require a drowsiness warning for the specific drug in question. Hall claimed that the labeling violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case and denied Walgreens' motion to dismiss. Walgreens argued that the labeling fell within the CPA's statutory safe harbor, which exempts actions permitted by regulatory bodies. The federal court then certified the question to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, asking whether the labeling decision fell within the statutory safe harbor under RCW 19.86.170.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington concluded that the statutory safe harbor applies only to actions expressly permitted by a regulatory body. Since the FDA had not specifically permitted labeling the cough medicine as "nondrowsy," the court held that the activity did not fall within the statutory safe harbor. The court answered the certified question in the negative, indicating that the labeling did not qualify for the exemption under the CPA. View "Hall v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law

Former Spokane police officer Jeffery Thurman was the subject of a June 13, 2019 article in the Spokesman-Review, owned by Cowles Co., which alleged he was fired for racial slurs, sexual harassment, and talk of killing black people. On June 14, 2021, Thurman filed a defamation lawsuit against Cowles Co. Shortly after, on July 25, 2021, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) took effect. Thurman amended his complaint on December 3, 2021, adding new factual allegations and a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).The trial court partially granted Cowles' special motion for expedited relief under the UPEPA, dismissing Thurman’s CPA claim but denying the motion to dismiss the defamation claim, reasoning that the defamation claim was part of the original complaint. Cowles appealed the denial of expedited relief for the defamation claim, and Thurman cross-appealed the dismissal of his CPA claim.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the UPEPA applied to both Thurman’s defamation and CPA claims. The majority reasoned that the defamation claim was "asserted" on a continuing basis on the UPEPA’s effective date. The dissent argued that the defamation claim was not "asserted" on or after July 25, 2021, and thus the UPEPA did not apply.The Washington Supreme Court held that Thurman’s amended defamation claim relates back to the original complaint filed on June 14, 2021, and is not subject to the UPEPA. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, deciding the case on statutory grounds and declining to address the constitutional arguments. View "Thurman v. Cowles Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., alleging that the company violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by charging grossly inflated prices for essential goods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs claimed that Amazon's price increases, which they defined as 15% or more on any consumer good or food item after a declared emergency, were unfair. They also alleged negligence and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington reviewed the case and Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that price gouging is not an unfair trade practice under the CPA. The District Court then certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court: whether the CPA's prohibition on "unfair" acts or practices includes price gouging as alleged, and if so, whether the court or jury determines what percentage increase in price is "unfair."The Washington Supreme Court held that price gouging, as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, may be considered an unfair act or practice under the CPA. The court applied the substantial injury test from federal law, which requires that the act causes substantial injury to consumers, is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. The court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged substantial injury, lack of reasonable alternatives, and no countervailing benefits.However, the court declined to establish a rigid 15% price increase threshold as a predicate for a price gouging claim, stating that such economic policy decisions are best left to the legislature. Finally, the court determined that whether an act is unfair is generally a mixed question of law and fact for the jury to resolve, unless the facts are undisputed, in which case it is a question of law for the court. View "Greenberg v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Dr. Stan Schiff and Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies. Dr. Schiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated providers, claimed that Liberty Mutual's practice of reducing provider bills to an 80th percentile cap based on a computer-generated calculation violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Liberty Mutual argued that the statutory requirement to conduct a reasonable investigation into medical expenses is satisfied by determining the 80th percentile of charges for a treatment in the geographic area, and this practice is not an unfair practice under the CPA.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled that Liberty Mutual's practice of using the FAIR Health database to determine the 80th percentile of charges for a treatment in the geographic area is not unfair or unreasonable and does not violate the CPA or the personal injury protection (PIP) requirements to establish standards under which reasonable charges for medical procedures are determined. The court reasoned that comparing charges for the same treatment in the same geographic area is relevant to the determination of reasonableness. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court to enter a summary judgment order in favor of Liberty Mutual. View "Schiff v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, a minor and her parents, sued their health insurer, Premera Blue Cross, for denying coverage for the minor’s stay in a wilderness therapy program, claiming that the denial violates mental health parity laws. The plaintiffs also alleged breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim based on alleged violation of federal parity laws does not form a viable common law action. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that a violation of federal parity law would give rise to a viable common law action for breach of contract.Furthermore, the Court held that the breach of contract action based on Premera's alleged violation of state parity laws could not succeed based on the statutory language that was in place at the time.However, the Court did affirm the lower court’s finding that the plaintiffs were not required to produce evidence of objective symptomatology to support their insurance bad faith claim for emotional distress damages. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the bad faith and Consumer Protection Act claims. View "P.E.L. v. Premera Blue Cross" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Matthew and Melanie Nelson (collectively Nelsons) married in 2020. The following year, defendant Puget Sound Collections Inc. (PSC), a debt collection agency, garnished Matthew’s wages in an attempt to satisfy a 2014 default judgment against him and his former wife, stemming from her medical expenses. The Nelsons argued RCW 26.16.200 required any eligible debt be reduced to judgment within the three years before and the three years after the marriage. In their view, the marital bankruptcy statute barred PSC from garnishing Matthew’s wages because the 2014 judgment was entered too soon and not “within three years” of their 2020 marriage. In contrast, PSC argued “within three years of the marriage” simply meant “not later in time than three years after the marriage.” Under this interpretation, PSC lawfully garnished Matthew’s wages because it reduced the debt to judgment not later than three years after the Nelsons’ marriage. The federal appellate court certified questions of Washington law in this case about the so-called marital bankruptcy statute, RCW 26.16.200. The Washington Supreme Court found that while the Nelsons’ interpretation might hold “some logical appeal, and their situation is certainly sympathetic, only PSC’s interpretation of RCW 26.16.200 effectuates the purpose of the statute to provide limited debt collection relief to diligent creditors.” The Court answered the first and second certified questions based on the statute’s plain language and held that “within” in this context means “not later in time than” three years of the marriage. “This interpretation permits wage garnishment where, as here, the creditor had reduced the debt to judgment more than three years before the marriage.” As to the additional certified question, which asked whether Washington law placed any limitation on the amount of wages subject to garnishment, the Nelsons correctly conceded this issue. The Supreme Court held that where other statutory requirements are met, RCW 26.16.200 permitted a creditor to garnish the entirety of the debtor spouse’s wages. View "Nelson v. P.S.C., Inc." on Justia Law

Duane Young bought a new 2014 Toyota Tacoma pickup truck with a limited package of additional features from a dealership in Burlington, Washington. Young paid about $36,000 for the truck. At the time Young was researching his purchase, the Toyota website, Toyota’s advertising and the "Monroney label" incorrectly asserted that the vehicle had an outside temperature display on the rearview mirror along with some other displays. Some of the displays had been moved to the dashboard, but the outside temperature display was no longer available. A Toyota Tacoma truck with the colors and features Young wanted was not available in Eugene, Oregon, where he lived. Young called dealerships in Washington and Oregon until he found what he wanted in Burlington. He negotiated the purchase over the phone, paid a deposit, and, on October 30, 2013, flew to Burlington to pick up his truck. Shortly before Young flew to Burlington, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. (Toyota) realized that its advertising was incorrect and that some 2014 Toyota Tacoma trucks had been shipped with an incorrect Monroney label. Before the error was corrected, 147 vehicles, including three in Washington State, were sold with the representation that they had the enhanced rearview mirror with the temperature display when they did not. After realizing its mistake, Toyota offered $100 compensation to each consumer who had purchased a truck without the advertised feature. Young declined that offer and several others, including an offer to replace the display with aftermarket equipment. After the parties were unable to negotiate a satisfactory resolution, Young brought a CPA suit against Toyota, and after a two day bench trial, judgment was rendered in Toyota's favor. The judge concluded Young had failed to prove the first element of his CPA claim because he had not shown Toyota’s false statements of fact about the vehicle had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public. The judge also found, among other things, that Young had failed to prove public interest; causation; injury; or that Toyota had violated the automobile dealers practices act. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. View "Young v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A." on Justia Law

In November 2013, Washington voters rejected Initiative 522 (I-522), which would have required labels on packaged foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) opposed state-level GMO labeling laws, including I-522. Over the course of the 2013 election cycle, GMA solicited over $14 million in optional contributions from its member companies, $11 million of which went to support the “No on 522” political committee. The payments to No on 522 were attributed solely to GMA itself, with no indication of which companies had provided the funds. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, GMA was not registered as a political committee and did not make any reports to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). The State filed a complaint alleging that GMA intentionally violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA)'s registration and disclosure requirements and the FCPA’s prohibition on concealing the sources of election-related spending. GMA countered that it cannot be subject to the FCPA’s registration and disclosure requirements because those requirements violate the First Amendment as applied. U.S. CONST. amend. I. The trial court agreed with the State, imposed a $6 million base penalty on GMA, and trebled the penalty to $18 million after determining GMA;s violations were intentional. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed, but revered the treble penalty, holding that one had to "subjectively intend to violate the law in order to be subject to treble damages." After review, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion that the FCPA, and that the FCPA was constitutional as applied. The Court reversed the appellate court on the treble penalty, holding that the trial court applied the proper legal standard to determine GMA intentionally violated the FCPA. The matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of GMA's claim that the penalty imposed violated the excessive fines clauses of the federal and Washington constitutions. View "Washington v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n" on Justia Law