For any Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act suit filed on or after June 11, 2026, a recipient of an unlawful marketing text or email gets $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater, instead of the old $500. The change reaches older messages too. It doesn’t touch the consent rule, the Consumer Protection Act route, or attorney fees, so class exposure drops by four-fifths but doesn’t disappear. Companies texting Washington numbers still face real claims, with a smaller number to negotiate against.
What did the Washington Legislature change?
It rewrote the damages figure, added a knowledge element to one email claim, and made both changes reach older messages.
The bill is Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274, enacted as Chapter 135, Laws of 2026. The session law shows it passed the House on February 16, 2026, passed the Senate on March 6, and was approved by the Governor on March 23, with an effective date of June 11, 2026.
Section 2 amends the damages provision. As amended, RCW 19.190.040(1) now provides that damages to the recipient of “a commercial electronic mail message or a commercial electronic text message sent in violation of this chapter are $100, or actual damages, whichever is greater.” The figure it replaced was five hundred dollars. Damages to an interactive computer service stay at $1,000 under subsection (2).
Section 3 controls timing. It says, in the session law, that “This act applies to all causes of action commenced on or after the effective date of this section, regardless of when the cause of action arose.” The next sentence adds that “To this extent, this act applies retroactively, but in all other respects it applies prospectively.”
Section 1 changes the email subject-line rule. Under amended RCW 19.190.020(1)(b), the ban now reaches an email that “Uses a subject line which, based on the person’s actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, contains false or misleading information in the subject line.” That’s an email-only change. The text message ban wasn’t amended.
How did CEMA text claims work before the amendment?
They worked as automatic-damages claims routed through the state Consumer Protection Act.
The text ban itself is short. Under RCW 19.190.060(1), “No person conducting business in the state may initiate or assist in the transmission of an electronic commercial text message to a telephone number assigned to a Washington resident for cellular telephone or pager service.” The main exception, in RCW 19.190.070(1)(b), applies when “the subscriber has clearly and affirmatively consented in advance to receive these text messages.”
The Washington Supreme Court explained the damages mechanics in Wright v. Lyft, Inc. (2017). The court held that the damages provision doesn’t create its own cause of action, and that “because the provision provides automatic damages for violations without condition, injury and causation do not need to be proved to receive damages.” A plaintiff sues under the Consumer Protection Act, and the per-message figure fills in the injury element.
That made the damages number the whole game in a class case. A plaintiff didn’t have to show a full inbox or a data charge, only a commercial text sent without the required consent. The firm’s earlier post on Washington CEMA text message claims covers the elements and the mixed-purpose message problem in more detail.
What does the $100 figure change for a business?
It changes the math of every class demand filed after June 10, 2026.
At $500 a text, a campaign that reached 20,000 Washington numbers carried a headline exposure of $10 million. At $100, the same campaign carries $2 million. That’s still a serious number, but it moves many CEMA class cases out of bet-the-company territory and into a range where defense costs and settlement value can be weighed on the merits.
The retroactivity clause is the part businesses should read twice. A text sent in 2024 is governed by the $100 figure if the suit is filed on or after June 11, 2026, because the statute keys on when the action is “commenced,” not when the message went out. A suit filed before June 11 is a different matter: the clause speaks only to actions commenced on or after the effective date, so pending cases filed earlier don’t pick up the lower figure from the statute’s text.
Expect plaintiffs to keep pairing CEMA with federal claims. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act still provides “$500 in damages for each such violation” in its private actions, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and (c)(5), with a court able to increase the award up to three times if the violation was willful or knowing. A Washington plaintiff with a federal Do Not Call or prerecorded-message theory will plead it alongside CEMA. The state amendment does nothing to that exposure.
What stays the same?
More than the headline suggests.
The consent standard didn’t change. “Clearly and affirmatively consented in advance” is still the test under RCW 19.190.070, and there’s still no general exception for existing customers. A business that relied on a past purchase as permission to text has the same liability problem it had before, just priced lower.
Fee shifting didn’t change either. The Consumer Protection Act lets a successful plaintiff recover actual damages “together with the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,” under RCW 19.86.090. In an individual case, the fee claim can dwarf a $100 damages award. That’s the main reason a one-text demand letter still deserves a real answer.
The definition of a commercial text didn’t change. Under RCW 19.190.010(3), it’s a text “sent to promote real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” Order updates and appointment reminders with a coupon tacked on remain the riskiest messages a business sends to Washington numbers.
Before and after ESHB 2274
| Item | Suits filed before June 11, 2026 | Suits filed on or after June 11, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Recipient damages, RCW 19.190.040(1) | Five hundred dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater | $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater |
| Interactive computer service damages, RCW 19.190.040(2) | One thousand dollars or actual damages | $1,000 or actual damages |
| Email subject-line claim, RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) | Contains false or misleading information | Same, plus actual or fairly implied knowledge |
| Text consent exception, RCW 19.190.070 | Clear, affirmative, advance consent | Unchanged |
| Attorney fees, RCW 19.86.090 | Available to a successful plaintiff | Unchanged |
| Federal TCPA claim, 47 U.S.C. § 227 | $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Unchanged |
What should a company texting Washington numbers do now?
The lower figure is a reason to defend these claims on their facts, not a reason to relax the program. The firm’s TCPA defense lawyers page covers state text claims that arrive paired with federal TCPA counts. When a Washington demand or complaint arrives:
- Put a litigation hold on the texting platform’s send logs, the consent capture records for each Washington number, and the message content, so nothing rolls off a retention schedule.
- Export opt-out and internal do-not-text records with timestamps, because a federal count often comes with the state one.
- Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub history and the Registry version dates used for any Washington campaign.
- Gather the texting vendor and lead-source contracts, the message templates, and any affiliate or referral program terms that could make the business the sender of someone else’s text.
- Note whether the suit was filed before or after the amendment took effect. Then talk to a lawyer before you answer the demand, contact the recipient, or offer anything.
Questions about the 2026 CEMA amendment
Does the $100 figure apply to texts sent before June 11, 2026?
Yes, if the lawsuit is filed on or after June 11, 2026. The session law says the act applies to all causes of action commenced on or after its effective date “regardless of when the cause of action arose.” The date that matters is the filing date, not the send date. A case filed before June 11 isn’t covered by that clause.
Did the amendment change what counts as consent to marketing texts?
No. The consent exception in RCW 19.190.070 still requires that the subscriber “clearly and affirmatively consented in advance.” ESHB 2274 amended only RCW 19.190.020 and 19.190.040. Businesses should keep the same consent capture and recordkeeping they used before, because the lower damages figure doesn’t help a company that can’t prove consent.
Can a plaintiff still recover attorney fees on a CEMA text claim?
Yes. CEMA text claims run through the Consumer Protection Act, and RCW 19.86.090 allows a successful plaintiff to recover the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The amendment didn’t change that. In single-plaintiff cases, the fee exposure is often larger than the statutory damages.
Does the amendment affect federal TCPA claims over the same texts?
No. The federal statute sets its own damages of $500 per violation, and a court may increase that up to three times for willful or knowing violations. A Washington complaint that pleads both a CEMA count and a federal Do Not Call or prerecorded-message count still carries the federal figure on that count.
Facing a Washington text message suit
If your company is accused of sending marketing texts to Washington numbers without clear advance consent, the filing date and the consent records usually decide what the case is worth. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts to Washington residents. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The amendment is Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026. The amended statutes are RCW 19.190.020 and RCW 19.190.040. The unamended text provisions are RCW 19.190.010, RCW 19.190.060, and RCW 19.190.070. The Consumer Protection Act remedy is RCW 19.86.090.
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision is Wright v. Lyft, Inc., No. 94162-9 (Wash. Dec. 14, 2017). The federal statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 26, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.