{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-18","fingerprint":"ewai:us:efda2f","proof":"sha256:1d5b41392edc5e04a53e9f64f0235f0a17d83cb96769c8088913dff0369da5bb","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723","para_724","para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737","para_738","para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742","para_743","para_744","para_745","para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749","para_750","para_751","para_752","para_753","para_754","para_755","para_756","para_757","para_758","para_759","para_760","para_761","para_762","para_763","para_764","para_765","para_766","para_767","para_768","para_769","para_770","para_771","para_772","para_773","para_774","para_775","para_776","para_777","para_778","para_779","para_780","para_781","para_782","para_783","para_784","para_785","para_786","para_787","para_788","para_789","para_790","para_791","para_792","para_793","para_794","para_795","para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803","para_804","para_805","para_806","para_807","para_808","para_809","para_810","para_811","para_812","para_813","para_814","para_815","para_816","para_817","para_818","para_819","para_820","para_821","para_822","para_823","para_824","para_825","para_826","para_827","para_828","para_829","para_830","para_831","para_832","para_833","para_834","para_835","para_836","para_837","para_838","para_839","para_840","para_841","para_842","para_843","para_844","para_845","para_846","para_847","para_848","para_849","para_850","para_851","para_852","para_853","para_854","para_855","para_856"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"NOTICE: SLIP OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"(not the court’s final written decision)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"written opinions that are originally filed by the court.","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"the court.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED ) No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE )","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON )","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"IN ) En Banc","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"ROXANN BROWN and MICHELLE SMITH, )","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"on their own behalf and on behalf of others","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"similarly situated,","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":") Filed: April 17, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Plaintiffs, )","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"v. )","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"OLD NAVY, LLC; OLD NAVY (APPAREL), )","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"LLC; OLD NAVY HOLDINGS, LLC; GPS )","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"SERVICES, INC.; and THE GAP, INC., )","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"inclusive, )","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Defendants. )","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"GONZÁLEZ, J.—The Washington State legislature passed a law making it","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"illegal to send commercial e-mails with false or misleading information in their","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"subject lines. The statute’s language is plain: “No person may initiate the","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"transmission . . . of a commercial electronic mail message . . . [to] a Washington","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"resident that: . . . (b) [c]ontains false or misleading information in the subject line.”FILE","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"IN CLERK’S OFFICE","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"APRIL 17, 2025THIS OPINION WAS FILED","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"APRIL 17, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"SARAH R. PENDLETON","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"SUPREME COURT CLERKFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"RCW 19.190.020(1). We are asked whether this statute prohibits any false or","paragraph_id":"para_60","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"misleading information in subject lines or only false or misleading information","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"about the commercial nature of the message. We conclude that the statute prohibits","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"the use of any false or misleading information in the subject line of a commercial","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"e-mail.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Roxann Brown and Michelle Smith sued the retailer Old Navy after","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"receiving e-mails with subject lines that they say contained false or misleading","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"information regarding the duration of Old Navy’s promotions, violating the","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"“Commercial Electronic Mail Act” (CEMA). A federal court has asked us to","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"answer a certified question about CEMA.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"CEMA was enacted in 1998, during the Internet’s dial-up era, to address “an","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"increasing number of consumer complaints about commercial electronic mail.”","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"LAWS OF 1998, ch. 149, § 1. The legislature was specifically concerned about the","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"growing “volume” of commercial e-mails. Id. When CEMA was originally passed,","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Internet access was comparatively slow and expensive. Consumers often paid for","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"access “by the minute or hour.” State v. Heckel, 143 Wn.2d 824, 835, 24 P.3d 404","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"(2001). The legislature was concerned about the added cost consumers faced when","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"a barrage of commercial e-mails meant that they paid internet providers for time","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"spent sifting through in-boxes cluttered by spam. See FINAL B. REP. ON ENGROSSEDFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2752, at 1, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998) (“Many","paragraph_id":"para_82","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"consumers connect to the Internet through interactive computer services that","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"charge fees for time spent utilizing a dial-up connection to their computer","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"servers.”); see also S.B. REP. ON ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2752, at 1, 55th","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998) (“The sending of e-mail messages uses resources of","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"recipients. Many consumers connect to the Internet through interactive computer","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"services that charge in increments of time so that recipients must pay to download","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"these messages.”). While the legislature has amended CEMA several times since","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"its enactment, it has never revised RCW 19.190.020(1)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"A single sentence captures two of CEMA’s e-mail regulations.1 CEMA","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"prohibits sending Washington residents “a commercial electronic mail message”","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"that misrepresents the sender’s identity. RCW 19.190.020(1)(a). CEMA defines a","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"“commercial electronic mail message” as “an electronic mail message sent for the","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"purpose of promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” RCW","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"19.190.010(2). The definition of the term commercial electronic mail message and","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"1 No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"(a) Uses a third party's internet domain name without permission of the third","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying the point","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail message; or","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"RCW 19.190.020(1).For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"its use in RCW 19.190.020 means that this statute applies only to commercial e-","paragraph_id":"para_108","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"mails.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"A violation of CEMA’s e-mail regulations is a per se violation of the","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Consumer Protection Act (CPA). See RCW 19.190.030(1), .100; ch. 19.86 RCW.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"CEMA sets a $500 penalty for sending Washington residents commercial e-mails","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"that violate its regulations. RCW 19.190.040. Unlike the CPA, CEMA’s $500","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"penalty does not require a showing of actual damages. Cf. RCW 19.86.090. Under","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"CEMA, the injury is receiving an e-mail that violates its regulations. While the","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"CPA broadly outlaws “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” RCW 19.86.020, CEMA","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"distinctly outlaws sending commercial e-mails that contain false or misleading","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"information in subject lines.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Plaintiffs allege that Old Navy violated RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) when it sent","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"them e-mails that, for example, announced that a 50 percent off promotion was","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"ending even though the retailer continued to offer the 50 percent off promotion in","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"the days following the initial e-mail. Other examples include e-mails that","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"announced time-limited promotions (e.g. “today only” or “three days only”) that","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"were extended beyond the specified time limit. Smith and Brown categorize the e-","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"mails containing allegedly false or misleading subject lines into four types: e-mails","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"that announced offers that were available for longer than the time stated in theFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"subject line, e-mails that falsely suggested an old offer was new, e-mails that","paragraph_id":"para_130","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"falsely suggested an offer was ending, and e-mails that falsely stated a promotion","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"was extended. Plaintiffs claim that Old Navy used false or misleading information","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"in the subject lines to get consumers to open the e-mails and “make purchases","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"based on a false sense of urgency.” Pls.’ Answering Br. on Certified Question at 6.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"No state court has addressed the scope of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). In Weimin","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Chen v. Sur La Table, Inc., a federal court recently held that subsection (1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"“specifically prohibits false and misleading information as to the nature of the","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"email, i.e. that the email is an advertisement.” Chen v. Sur La Table, Inc., 655 F.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Supp. 3d 1082, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (emphasis added). Old Navy, supported","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"by amici curiae Retail Litigation Center and the Washington Retail Association,","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"asks that we follow Chen. But we are not bound by federal courts’ interpretation of","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"our state laws. See In re Elliott, 74 Wn.2d 600, 602, 446 P.2d 347 (1968) (plurality","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"opinion); Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 194","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Wn.2d 253, 268-69, 449 P.3d 1019 (2019). The attorney general, as amicus curiae,","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"asks that we reject Old Navy’s interpretation of subsection (1)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"CERTIFIED QUESTION","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Does RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) prohibit the transmission of a commercial","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"email with a subject line containing any false or misleading","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"information, or is the prohibition limited to subject lines containing","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"false or misleading information about the commercial nature of the","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"email message?For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"Order Certifying Question to Wash. State Sup. Ct., Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No.","paragraph_id":"para_154","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"2:23-cv-00781-JHC, at 3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 29, 2023).","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"We review certified questions de novo. Wright v. Lyft, Inc., 189 Wn.2d 718,","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"722, 406 P.3d 1149 (2017) (citing Parents Involved in Community Schs. v. Seattle","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Sch. Dist. No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 670, 72 P.3d 151 (2003)). We have broad","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"discretion in deciding how to answer a certified question. Convoyant LLC v.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"DeepThink, LLC, 200 Wn.2d 72, 74, 514 P.3d 643 (2022). We consider the legal","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"issues presented based on the certified record provided by the federal court.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Peoples v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 194 Wn.2d 771, 777, 452 P.3d 1218 (2019)","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"(citing Bradburn v. N. Cent. Reg’l Libr. Dist., 168 Wn.2d 789, 799, 231 P.3d 166","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"(2010)).","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Velazquez","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc., 2 Wn.3d 552, 554-55, 540 P.3d 1170","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"(2024) (citing Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"P.3d 4 (2002)). Statutory interpretation begins with a statute’s plain meaning. Lake","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 169 Wn.2d 516, 526, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010). Our","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"fundamental objective when interpreting statutes “is to ascertain and carry out the","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Legislature’s intent, and if the statute’s meaning is plain on its face, then th[is]","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent.”For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 9-10. “Plain meaning ‘is to be discerned from","paragraph_id":"para_176","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.’”","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"Lake, 169 Wn.2d at 526 (quoting State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"1007 (2009)). While we may look for guidance in the statutory context, we “must","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"not add words where the legislature has chosen not to include them.” Rest. Dev.,","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 150 Wn.2d 674, 682, 80 P.3d 598 (2003). We must also","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"construe statutory language in a manner that gives “‘all the language used’” effect,","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"without rendering any portion of the statute “‘meaningless or superfluous.’” Davis","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"v. Dep’t of Licensing, 137 Wn.2d 957, 963, 977 P.2d 554 (1999) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wn.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"(1996)). Importantly, “[w]e construe remedial consumer protection","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"statutes . . . liberally in favor of the consumers they aim to protect.” Jametsky v.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 765, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014).","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"If a statute “is clear on its face,” then it “is not subject to judicial","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"construction.” State v. J.M., 144 Wn.2d 472, 480, 28 P.3d 720 (2001) (citing State","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"v. Chapman, 140 Wn.2d 436, 450, 998 P.2d 282 (2000)); see also State v. Evans,","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"177 Wn.2d 186, 192, 298 P.3d 724 (2013) (“Plain language that is not ambiguous","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"does not require construction.” (citing State v. Delgado, 148 Wn.2d 723, 727, 63","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"P.3d 792 (2003))). “If the statute is unambiguous after a review of the plainFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"meaning, the court’s inquiry is at an end.” State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 927, 280","paragraph_id":"para_198","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"P.3d 1110 (2012).","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"When a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"engage in statutory construction and “‘look to the legislative history of the statute","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"and the circumstances surrounding its enactment to determine legislative intent.’”","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"Lake, 169 Wn.2d at 527 (quoting Rest. Dev., 150 Wn.2d at 682); see also Evans,","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"177 Wn.2d at 192-93. Nonetheless, a statute is not ambiguous and thus not subject","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"to judicial construction “‘merely because different interpretations are","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"conceivable.’” Gray, 174 Wn.2d at 927 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"Est. of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 166 Wn.2d 489, 498, 210 P.3d","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"308 (2009)). Ambiguity “must arise from the language of the statute itself, not","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"from considerations outside the statute.” Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158 Wn.2d 194, 203-","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"04, 142 P.3d 155 (2006).","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"While interpreting statutes, we strive to avoid absurd results and we assume","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"that the legislature meant what it said. “‘Although the court should not construe","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"statutory language so as to result in absurd or strained consequences, neither","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"should the court question the wisdom of a statute even though its results seem","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"unduly harsh.’” In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 8, 969 P.2d 21 (1998)","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"(quoting Duke v. Boyd, 133 Wn.2d 80, 87, 942 P.2d 351 (1997)). Nonetheless, we","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"have explained that the “absurd results” canon of construction “must be appliedFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"sparingly” because this approach “refuses to give effect to the words the legislature","paragraph_id":"para_220","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"has written; it necessarily results in a court disregarding an otherwise plain","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"meaning and inserting or removing statutory language, a task that is decidedly the","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"province of the legislature.” Five Corners Fam. Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296,","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"311, 268 P.3d 892 (2011).","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"1. The plain meaning of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"In Washington, individuals and entities like Old Navy cannot send a","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"commercial e-mail that “[c]ontains false or misleading information in the subject","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"line.” RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). We have suggested that commercial e-mails","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"containing false or misleading subject lines “such as “Hi There!,” “Information","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Request,” and “Your Business Records”’” probably violate RCW","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"19.190.020(1)(b). Heckel, 143 Wn.2d at 835 (quoting Hr’g on H.B. 2752 Before","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"the Wash. H. Comm. on Energy & Utils. (Jan. 28, 1998) (testimony of Ed","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"McNichol)). But we have not addressed whether the prohibition encompasses any","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"false or misleading information or merely false or misleading information about","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"the commercial nature of the e-mail. Nonetheless, we have regarded the dual","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"prohibitions of RCW 19.190.020(1) as CEMA’s “‘truthfulness requirements’” and","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"explained that together they mean “[s]pammers must use an accurate,","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"nonmisleading subject line, and they must not manipulate the transmission path to","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"disguise the origin of their commercial messages.” Id. at 836 (quoting Jack L.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"Goldsmith & Alan O. Sykes, The Internet and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 110","paragraph_id":"para_242","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"YALE L.J. 785, 819 (2001)). In State v. Heckel, the Court of Appeals suggested that","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"deciding whether a subject line is misleading requires evaluating “the subject line","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"alone” because CEMA “does not regulate the body of the e-mail, only the subject","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"line.” 122 Wn. App. 60, 71, 93 P.3d 189 (2004). We agree. We recognize that in","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Heckel, the Court of Appeals also concluded that Heckel violated CEMA “by","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"enticing the recipient to believe that the message might be from a friend or","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"acquaintance or business contact . . . rather than a commercial advertisement.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"We conclude, however, that subsection (1)(b) is broader than that.","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"We begin with the statute’s plain meaning. Lake, 169 Wn.2d at 526.","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Plaintiffs argue that under the plain language of subsection (1)(b), a commercial e-","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"mail may not contain false or misleading information in the subject line. Old Navy","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"argues that read in context of other provisions of CEMA and the CPA, subsection","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"(1)(b) prohibits false or misleading information only about the commercial nature","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"of the commercial e-mail. It notes that the CPA “banned false or misleading","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"marketing in any medium” before CEMA was ever enacted and that plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"interpretation would render CEMA absurd and superfluous. Opening Br. on","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Certified Question for Defs. at 24.","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"First, Old Navy urges that when read in context with subsection (1)(a),","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"subsection (1)(b) is “directed at statements in the subject line that misleadFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"recipients as to the subject of the email.” Defs.’ Reply Br. at 5. In other words,","paragraph_id":"para_264","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"“deception about . . . what the email is about.” Id. at 6. Plaintiffs respond that","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"defendants’ interpretation would require us to impermissibly add words to the","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"statute. We agree with plaintiffs. To violate subsection (1)(b), an e-mail subject","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"line does not need to deceive consumers about the subject or purpose of the e-","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"mail—it merely needs to contain false or misleading information. This means that","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"a commercial e-mail violates subsection (1)(b) even when the false or misleading","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"information in the subject line does not deceive consumers about the advertising","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"purpose or commercial nature of the e-mail.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"We evaluate a statute’s plain meaning by looking to “‘the ordinary meaning","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found,","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.’” Lake, 169 Wn.2d at 526","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"(quoting Engel, 166 Wn.2d at 578). RCW 19.190.010(2) defines a commercial","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"electronic mail message as an e-mail “sent for the purpose of promoting real","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” Subsection (1)(b) prohibits false or","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"misleading information in the subject lines of e-mails sent for a commercial","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"purpose. RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). The incorporation of the term defined by RCW","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"19.190.010(2) into the prohibition of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) shows that the statute","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"was designed to regulate e-mails sent for a commercial purpose. Here, the","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"interpretation offered by Old Navy is precluded by the term defined in RCWFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"19.190.010(2). Furthermore, the language of subsection (1)(b) is patently clear.","paragraph_id":"para_286","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"Old Navy’s attempt at reading subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) together to ascertain a","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"distinct meaning fails to persuade us that subsection (1)(b) does not mean exactly","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"what it says.","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Second, while Old Navy concedes that the legislature intended to prevent","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"spammers from using false or misleading subject lines to trick people into opening","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"spam, it argues that subsection (1)(b) was not created as an “enhanced anti-fraud","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"provision” that encompasses only the commercial e-mail’s subject line. Opening","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"Br. on Certified Question for Defs. at 20. Old Navy argues that when read in","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"context, subsection (1)(b) simply imposes a disclosure requirement and a ban on","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"disguising e-mail information “so that a recipient would be more likely to open an","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"unwanted advertisement.” Id. at 15. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"CEMA sought to give consumers relief from commercial spam e-mail by","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"requiring accuracy and truthfulness in the subject lines of such e-mails. The","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"legislature sought to achieve this objective by targeting an e-mail’s header and","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"subject lines: the two pieces of information consumers first glean when faced with","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"the choice of deleting a message or engaging with its content. In short, the method","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"employed by the legislature in subsection (1)(b) to achieve the goals of CEMA is","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"precise and appropriate, and thus Old Navy’s argument that CEMA did notFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"distinctly focus on truthfulness in the subject lines of commercial e-mails is","paragraph_id":"para_307","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"unpersuasive.","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Similarly, Old Navy urges that CEMA is concerned with specific electronic","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"practices unique to e-mails and “not fraudulent conduct in general that happens to","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"be carried out over those messages.” Id. at 23. It argues that “the Legislature made","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"no indications that it intended to elevate the penalties of fraudulent inducement","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"generally when it happens to be carried out over the internet.” Id. But like the","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"argument above, this point ignores the legislature’s choice to focus on the subject","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"lines of commercial e-mails in an attempt to address a deluge of commercial spam.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"Third, Old Navy argues that plaintiffs’ interpretation would render","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"subsection (1)(b) superfluous and absurd given that the CPA already “banned false","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"or misleading marketing in any medium.” Id. at 24. Old Navy contends plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"interpretation would create an absurd “two-tier system where a fraudulent","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"statement in the subject line violates CEMA and attaches statutory damages while","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"the same statement in the body of the e-mail would violate the CPA but only award","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"actual damages.” Id. at 25. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"The CPA and CEMA focus on different, admittedly overlapping, things. The","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"CPA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” RCW 19.86.020. CEMA, by","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"contrast, targets a specific deceptive commercial practice: sending WashingtonFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"residents commercial e-mails that contain “false or misleading information in the","paragraph_id":"para_329","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"subject line[s].” RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). The legislature understood that these two","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"statutes work together: it made CEMA violations per se CPA violations. See RCW","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"19.190.030(1), .100. As the attorney general’s amicus brief explains, “Per se CPA","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"violations are predicated on the Legislature’s recognition that certain conduct is","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"categorically against the public interest.” Br. of Amicus Curiae Att’y Gen. of State","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"of Wash. at 4 (citing Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash.,","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 79, 170 P.3d 10 (2007)). In short, Old Navy’s argument that","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"plaintiffs’ interpretation renders the CPA superfluous is unpersuasive.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"Old Navy also contends that it would be absurd to interpret subsection (1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"as to give statutory damages for a false statement in a subject line because the same","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"statement in the body of the e-mail would warrant only actual damages under the","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"CPA. In effect, Old Navy is arguing that focusing on the subject line leads to","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"absurd results. But the legislature was targeting a particular type of deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"commercial activity in RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)—sending commercial e-mails with","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"false or misleading subject lines. The legislature concluded that statutory damages","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"was an appropriate and effective means of combating commercial spam e-mails.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"See Heckel, 143 Wn.2d at 836-37. Accordingly, CEMA does not require a showing","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"of injury for statutory damages to be awarded because the injury is receiving the e-For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"mail that violates CEMA. There is nothing absurd about CEMA’s focus on subject","paragraph_id":"para_350","court_paragraph":15},{"text":"lines or CEMA’s allocation of statutory damages to falsity in the subject lines.","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Relatedly, Old Navy seems to argue that it would be absurd to expose Old","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"Navy to liability under CEMA if it violated CEMA’s truthfulness requirements","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"because the liability is costly and because the body of the e-mail is unregulated by","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"CEMA. This argument is unpersuasive. There is nothing absurd about holding","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"defendants liable for violating the law, even if that law is specifically focused on","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"the subject line of the e-mail and not its body. Conversely, it would be absurd for","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"us to ignore the plain meaning of subsection (1)(b) simply because Old Navy","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"would have to pay statutory penalties if it violated the law.","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"Lastly, Old Navy argues that we should look to Chen for guidance in","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"evaluating subsection (1)(b)’s plain meaning even though the Chen court","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"determined that the statutory provision is ambiguous. But Chen’s discussion of the","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"statutory provision is of little help here. We conclude that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"is not ambiguous. In Washington, “[n]o person may [send] . . . a commercial","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"electronic mail message . . . that: . . . (b) [c]ontains false or misleading information","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"in the subject line.” RCW 19.190.020(1). This prohibition is not restricted to false","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"or misleading information about the commercial nature of the e-mail.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"2. RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) is not ambiguous","paragraph_id":"para_370","court_paragraph":16},{"text":"Old Navy argues that if subsection (1)(b) is ambiguous, legislative history","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"endorses Old Navy’s interpretation. Plaintiffs disagree and argue the provision is","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"unambiguous. Ambiguity arises from statutory language, “not from considerations","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"outside the statute.” Cerrillo, 158 Wn.2d at 203-04. When a statute is subject to","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we “‘look to the","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"legislative history of the statute and the circumstances surrounding its enactment to","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"determine legislative intent.’” Lake, 169 Wn.2d at 527 (quoting Rest. Dev., 150","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"Wn.2d at 682). We do not review legislative history if a provision is not","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"ambiguous. Evans, 177 Wn.2d at 192 (“Plain language that is not ambiguous does","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"not require construction.”) If the plain meaning of a statute renders it","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"unambiguous, “the court’s inquiry is at an end.” Gray, 174 Wn.2d at 927. Most","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"importantly, a statute is not ambiguous “‘merely because different interpretations","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"are conceivable.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Est. of","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"Haselwood, 166 Wn.2d at 498).","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"The plain language of subsection (1)(b) is not ambiguous. While the","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"meaning of “[c]ontains false or misleading information in the subject line” may be","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"broad, the language is clear. RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). The plain and clear provision","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"does not lose its meaning and become ambiguous simply because Old Navy offers","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"an interpretation that is arguably conceivable. We decline to find ambiguity whereFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"none emerges from the text of the statute, related provisions, or the statutory","paragraph_id":"para_392","court_paragraph":17},{"text":"context. Because we hold that subsection (1)(b) is not ambiguous, we will not","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"review pertinent legislative history to determine the legislature’s intent. The","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"legislative intent underlying subsection (1)(b) is demonstrated by the provision’s","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"plain meaning.","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"3. Case law does not support Old Navy’s interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"Old Navy argues that our decision in Heckel (and the Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"decision that followed remand in that case) supports its interpretation of subsection","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"(1)(b) because Heckel’s subject lines deceived recipients “as to the nature of the","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"body of the email—a commercial advertisement.” Opening Br. on Certified","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"Question for Defs. at 36 (citing Heckel, 122 Wn. App. at 71). It explains that the","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"discrepancy between the information in a subject line and the body of an e-mail is","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"what CEMA sought to fix. We disagree. CEMA does two things: it prohibits","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"disguising the sender of commercial e-mail and it prohibits including false or","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"misleading information in the subject line. We recognize that Heckel summarized","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"RCW 19.190.020(1) as requiring that “[s]pammers must use an accurate,","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"nonmisleading subject line, and they must not manipulate the transmission path to","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"disguise the origin of their commercial messages.” Heckel, 143 Wn.2d at 836. But","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"Heckel was a constitutional challenge to CEMA on the theory that it violated the","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"dormant commerce clause by burdening out-of-state spammers more than in-stateFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"spammers. Id. at 826, 831. It was not concerned with the exact scope of the","paragraph_id":"para_414","court_paragraph":18},{"text":"prohibition. Our holding that CEMA requires truthfulness in e-mail subject lines,","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"and that such truthfulness does not depend on what the rest of the e-mail conveys,","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"does not conflict with Heckel.","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"Old Navy seems to argue that Heckel supports the proposition that CEMA","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"requires truthfulness only about the advertising purpose of the e-mail. We disagree","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"that Heckel supports that interpretation and conclude such an interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"contradicts the plain language of the statute.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"4. Mere puffery and the consequence of plaintiffs’ interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"Finally, Old Navy argues that plaintiffs’ interpretation of subsection (1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"cannot be correct because such an interpretation would mean that commercial","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"entities like Old Navy would “be susceptible to lawsuit—legitimate or not—with","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"multi-million- or multi-billion-dollar exposure.” Opening Br. on Certified Question","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"for Defs. at 36. This argument parallels defendants’ “absurd outcome” argument.","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"But Old Navy would be susceptible to such exposure only if it violated the","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"prohibition of subsection (1)(b), and a result is not absurd if it is the plain","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"consequence of a clear statute.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"Old Navy also explains that it is concerned with instances of banal","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"hyperbole leading to “millions of dollars of potential exposure in CEMA liability.”","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"Id. at 37. It provides the example of a subject line that states “Best Deals of theFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"Year” and then suggests that if senders knew that “they might have excess","paragraph_id":"para_436","court_paragraph":19},{"text":"inventory at the end of the year and might offer that inventory at a steep discount,”","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"then every single e-mail recipient would be entitled to $500 “regardless of whether","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"a single recipient believed this to be the best sale of the year or not.” Id. Old Navy","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"asserts that “[t]his is not what CEMA was enacted to do.” Id. While this is outside","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"the scope of the certified question, we take this occasion to agree in part.","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"CEMA protects consumers by requiring that commercial e-mails","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"communicate honestly about the terms of a given promotion or sale in the subject","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"line. Promotions that state “Best Deals of the Year” are not misrepresentations and","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"do not communicate information that retroactively becomes false (and actionable)","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"under CEMA because market conditions change such that a better sale is later","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"available.","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"Representations that constitute “mere statements of opinion, not of fact,” are","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"generally not actionable. Grant v. Huschke, 74 Wash. 257, 263, 133 P. 447 (1913).","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"This principle emanates from case law about lawful title and warranties. See, e.g.,","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"id.; Carver-Shadbolt Co. v. Loch, 87 Wash. 453, 455, 151 P. 787 (1915). But it is","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"uniquely apt in this context. “[S]ubjective, unverifiable claims about a product or","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"service are ‘mere puffery’ and cannot give rise to a false advertising claim.” Sauk-","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle, 25 Wn. App. 2d 741, 749, 525 P.3d 238","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"(2023); State v. Living Essentials, LLC, 8 Wn. App. 2d 1, 26, 436 P.3d 857 (2019).For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"“Mere puffery” has been described as vague or highly subjective terms that cannot","paragraph_id":"para_458","court_paragraph":20},{"text":"be substantiated. Living Essentials, 8 Wn. App. 2d at 26. We hold that instances of","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"mere puffery are not prohibited by subsection (1)(b). Mere puffery includes","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"subjective statements, opinions, and hyperbole. Mere puffery is contrasted by","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"representations of fact—like the duration or availability of a promotion, its terms","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"and nature, the cost of goods, and other facts Washington residents would depend","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"on in making their consumer decisions.","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"We hold that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) prohibits sending Washington residents","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"commercial e-mails that contain any false or misleading information in the subject","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"lines of such e-mails.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_471","court_paragraph":21},{"text":"WE CONCUR:","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"Price, J.P.T.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"Brown v. Old Navy, LLC","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"MADSEN, J. (dissenting)—The time and cost to Washington citizens who","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"received deceptive commercial e-mails was a central concern of the “Commercial","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"Electronic Mail Act” (CEMA), chapter 19.190 RCW. E.g., ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"H.B. 2752, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998). To stem the flow of this electronic","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"“spam,” lawmakers intended to stop the transmission of e-mails with subject lines that","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"disguised the true nature of the message—to sell something to the recipient. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"CEMA precludes sending an electronic message that “promot[es] real property, goods, or","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"services for sale or lease,” RCW 19.190.010(2), and “[c]ontains false or misleading","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"information in the subject line.” RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). In short, CEMA regulates e-","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"mails sent for a commercial purpose with deceptive subject lines. RCW 19.190.010(2),","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":".020(1)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"The federal court has asked us to consider the scope of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b),","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"specifically whether subsection (1)(b) precludes sending e-mails containing anyFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"deceptive information in the subject line or only those with subject lines concealing the e-","paragraph_id":"para_496","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"mail’s commercial purpose.","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"In my view, the plain language of the statute, the stated legislative intent and","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"history, and state and federal case law preclude only those with subject lines concealing","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"the e-mail’s commercial purpose. See State v. Heckel, 122 Wn. App. 60, 71, 93 P.3d 189","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"(2004); Weimin Chen v. Sur La Table, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1088-93 (W.D. Wash.","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"2023). The majority reaches the opposite conclusion by reading RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"in isolation from its context and legislative intent, contrary to our rules of statutory","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"interpretation, and broadens the statute’s reach beyond the legislature’s intent.","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"Additionally, the majority’s reasoning conflicts with our statutory analysis in State","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"v. Heckel where we noted that a violation of the statute is discerned only from its header","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"or subject line. 143 Wn.2d 824, 835, 24 P.3d 404 (2001). Under the majority’s","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"approach, it is impossible to discern if a subject line is misleading without comparing it to","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"the body of the e-mail.","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"In interpreting statutes, our “fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"Legislature’s intent.” Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"P.3d 4 (2002). “[I]f the statute’s meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent.” Id. at 9-10. ToFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"determine plain meaning, courts look at “all that the Legislature has said in the statute","paragraph_id":"para_519","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"at 11. If a statute is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, it is ambiguous and","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"courts may consider legislative history and the “circumstances surrounding the enactment","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"of the statute.” Five Corners Fam. Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 312, 268 P.3d 892","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"(2011).","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"The parties offer competing interpretations of “false or misleading subject lines”","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"in RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). Old Navy argues that CEMA prohibits an e-mail subject line","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"that conceals the message’s commercial nature, while Brown contends that CEMA","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"broadly prohibits any false or misleading statements in an e-mail subject line. The","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"majority agrees with Brown and opines that Old Navy impermissibly adds words to the","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"statute. I disagree. It is Old Navy’s reading, rather than Brown’s, that follows our rules","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"of statutory interpretation by incorporating the context of the statute and related statutes","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"and maintains the scope of the statute as intended by the legislature. See Campbell &","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 11.","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"1. Plain Meaning of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"Read in isolation, and without context or reference to its many provisions,","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"including its legislative history and the concerns the legislation was attempting to","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"address, RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) may appear broad enough to cover any misstatement, as","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"the majority holds. The majority’s simple “plain meaning” analysis is attractive if weFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"focus only on the language in subsection (1)(b) of this complex statute and read it","paragraph_id":"para_542","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"through the lens of protecting consumers from reading unwanted e-mail, rather than on","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"the express intent of the legislature, which focused specifically on the pay-per-minute","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"model of Internet access, protecting Internet providers and the public from the expense of","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"storing and accessing “spam” e-mails.","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"This is not the first time we have been asked to navigate CEMA’s “labyrinthine”","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"statutory scheme. Wright v. Lyft, Inc., 2016 WL 7971290, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15,","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"2016) (court order). In Wright v. Lyft, Inc., we navigated these labyrinthine waters by","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"tracking CEMA’s statutory development. 189 Wn.2d 718, 724, 406 P.3d 1149 (2017).","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"Introduced in 1998, CEMA addressed the proliferation of unwanted electronic messages","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"known as “‘spam.’” Id. Lawmakers noted that sending e-mails consumed resources:","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"electronic storage and memory space, delays in receipt of an expected message, and","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"slowing down network speeds. S.B. REP. ON ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2752, at 1,","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998). At the time, many consumers used Internet that","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"charged in increments of time; thus spam recipients had to pay to download messages.","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"Id.","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"Washington was on the forefront of enacting antispam laws but was soon joined","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"by states around the country and the federal government. In 1998, a Federal Trade","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"Commission report discussed the “common issue” of spammers forging e-mail header","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"information to “‘avoid detection, frustrate remove requests, misdirect replies, and","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"generally frustrate efforts by users to prevent’” repeated receipt of spam e-mail. AmiciFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"Curiae Br. of Retail Litig. Ctr. & Wash. Retail Ass’n at 6 (quoting AD-HOC WORKING","paragraph_id":"para_566","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"GRP. ON UNSOLICITED COM. EMAIL, REPORT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 13","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"(1998)). The federal antispam law banned e-mail subject lines that are “likely to mislead","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"a recipient . . . about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"message.” 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(2). States like Nevada, Illinois, and Texas also passed","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"antispam bills, the intent of which was to preclude e-mails with subject lines that","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"concealed the nature of the message. Amici Curiae Br. of Retail Litig. Ctr. et al at 9-11","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"(citing Assembly Comm. on Judiciary, Minutes of the Meeting (Nev. Feb. 27, 2003) at 3;","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"S. Transcript, 93d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. 44, at 28 (Ill. May 13, 2003); H. RSCH. ORG.","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"B. ANALYSIS ON H.B. 1282, at 3-4 (Tex. Apr. 2, 2003)). Other states went further to","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"require an “advertisement” label in the e-mail subject line. See id. at 10-11 (citing laws","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"from 10 states).","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"2. “All That the Legislature Has Said in the Statute and Related Statutes”","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"Turning to Washington’s provision, RCW 19.190.020 provides:","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"(1) No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"(a) Uses a third party’s internet domain name without permission of the","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"third party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"the point of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"message; or","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"(Emphasis added.) The statute defines “commercial electronic mail message” as a","paragraph_id":"para_592","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"message “sent for the purpose of promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"lease.” RCW 19.190.010(2).","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"RCW 19.190.020(1)(a), the provision that precedes subsection (1)(b), precludes","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"transmitting an e-mail that “[u]ses a third party’s internet domain name without","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"permission of the third party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"message.” This provision prohibits senders from concealing who and where a","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"commercial e-mail is coming from. Subsection (1)(b) immediately follows and must be","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"read in harmony as each subsection flows from the same preamble.","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"Read together with the preamble, these subsections make a single sentence that","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"addresses the places where a commercial e-mail can deceive the recipient regarding the","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"true nature of the e-mail—in the “header” or the “subject” line. Viewing subsection","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"(1)(b) in context, the legislature intended both subsections to address the same problem,","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"preventing the sending of e-mails intended to hide the e-mail’s origin and the fact that it","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"is an unsolicited commercial message.","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"This interpretation is supported in the statement of legislative intent outlined in the","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"session law. The legislature was concerned about the “volume of commercial electronic","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"mail being sent” and the ability of Internet provider filtering systems to “screen out","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages when senders use a third party’s","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"internet domain name without the third party’s permission, or otherwise misrepresent theFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"message’s point of origin.” LAWS OF 1998, ch. 149, § 1 (emphasis added). The","paragraph_id":"para_616","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"legislative findings conclude by explaining that lawmakers sought to provide “immediate","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"relief to interactive computer service providers by prohibiting the sending of commercial","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"[e-mails] that . . . contain untrue or misleading information in the subject line.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"(emphasis added). These findings tie the legislature’s motivation for enacting CEMA not","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"to e-mail recipients but to Internet service providers. And, these findings reflect the","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"legislature’s intent to prevent unsolicited commercial e-mails in which the sender","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"misrepresents their identity. The law does not address the more general problem that","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"Brown complains of here: an accurately identified commercial entity sending e-mails","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"with potentially misleading subject lines—misleading only when read in conjunction with","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"the e-mail content.","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"The statement of intent demonstrates that the prohibition against including false or","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"misleading information in an e-mail subject line was enacted with a narrow purpose—to","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"prevent senders from misrepresenting the message’s “point of origin.” This purpose","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"supports Old Navy’s interpretation of the statute.","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"As a related statute, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch. 19.86 RCW, aids our","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"determination of CEMA’s plain meaning. See Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 11.","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"Washington’s CPA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” RCW 19.86.020. Chen, a","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"recent federal case, examined Washington’s CPA in determining how to interpret","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"subsection (1)(b) and concluded that it supports a narrow reading of the provision. 655 F.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"Supp. 3d at 1089. Chen noted that if CEMA’s prohibition on misleading information in","paragraph_id":"para_640","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"subject lines was read more broadly, it would encroach on the CPA’s provisions about","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"false advertising. Id. The law would then punish false advertising in e-mail subject lines","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"more severely than false advertising elsewhere. Id. Chen concluded that CEMA should","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"be interpreted narrowly to focus on the area relevant to the statute’s focus, as are other","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"statutes that prohibit false advertising in a certain context—for example, RCW 19.25.100,","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"which prohibits false representations in music advertising. Id. at 1090. This is a","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"reasonable interpretation of CEMA in light of its context.","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"The majority claims that a broad interpretation of subsection (1)(b) does not","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"duplicate the CPA’s ban on false or misleading marketing because it imposes greater","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"penalties. Majority at 13-14. The majority also points out that the legislature may decide","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"that false information in this specific context (appearing in e-mail subject lines) is","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"particularly harmful to consumers and thus punish it more harshly. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"True, the legislature is free to make these kinds of judgments. However, while","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"this may make the majority’s interpretation of the statute conceivable, it is not enough to","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"make it reasonable, particularly where the statutory context weighs strongly in favor of","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"an alternative interpretation. See Agrilink Foods, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 153 Wn.2d","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"392, 396, 103 P.3d 1226 (2005) (stating that “‘a statute is not ambiguous merely because","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"different interpretations are conceivable’” (quoting State v. Hahn, 83 Wn. App. 825, 831,","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"924 P.2d 392 (1996))).For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"In addition, the majority is quick to abandon Chen. Majority at 5, 15. I disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_663","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"Although Chen stated that the plain language of CEMA is ambiguous, its analysis of the","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"statutory context supports what I have attempted to show above—that RCW 19.190.020","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"plainly prohibits sending commercial e-mails with subject lines designed to mislead the","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"recipient about the commercial nature of the message.","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"In my view, subsection (1)(b) is unambiguous when read in the context of the","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"whole statute, considering the circumstances of its enactment, and interpreted in tandem","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"with the CPA. Therefore, I would hold that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) prohibits false or","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"misleading information in the subject line of a commercial e-mail as to the e-mail’s","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"commercial nature.","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"The majority agrees that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) is unambiguous but comes to a","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"very different conclusion. It says that Old Navy adds language to subsection (1)(b) that","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"limits its reach to the commercial nature of the e-mail. However, reading the entire","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"statute, it is the majority that broadens the reach to any false or misleading statement,","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"even an e-mail that accurately identifies itself in the subject line. The majority gives","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"subsection (1)(b) a much bigger job than the remainder of this single issue statute","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"supports.","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"3. Legislative History of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"Even if the majority’s plain meaning analysis is reasonable, this only makes the","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"statute ambiguous. When a statute is ambiguous, we may consult the legislative historyFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"for further guidance. See Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 12. The legislative history","paragraph_id":"para_686","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"supports Old Navy’s interpretation: read as a whole, CEMA prohibits subject lines that","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"conceal the commercial nature of the message. As previously discussed, Washington’s","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"legislature enacted CEMA in 1998 in response to a large increase in unsolicited","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"commercial e-mail. ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2752, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash.","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"1998). The legislature observed that these e-mails are costly for recipients who cannot","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"refuse them and must spend time reviewing each message to determine its origins. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"The legislature also noted that these unsolicited commercial e-mails are often","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"indistinguishable from other electronic messages, forcing recipients to “wade through","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"unwanted advertisements to obtain those messages they wish to receive.” SUBSTITUTE","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"H.B. 2752, at 1, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998).","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"As originally introduced, CEMA would have precluded sending spam, with","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"limited exceptions. Transmitting commercial e-mail would have been allowed only when","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"businesses have an existing relationship with the sender, to collect an existing obligation,","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"or if a person consented to receive the e-mail. H.B. ANALYSIS ON H.B. 2752, 55th Leg.,","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"at 2-3, Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998). Even in these circumstances, the original legislation","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"required senders to include the term “advertisement” as the first word of the e-mail","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"subject line. Id. at 3. In short, the original bill was meant to “prohibit unwanted spam","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"outright and to make it easy for internet users to identify such advertisements so that they","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"could be avoided or deleted with ease.” Chen, 655 F. Supp. 3d at 1091 (discussing","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"legislative history of CEMA). The original legislation was modified based on FirstFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"Amendment to the United States Constutition concerns, forgoing an outright ban and","paragraph_id":"para_710","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"dropping the “advertisement” requirement. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"The legislature revised the bill, but the concerns motivating CEMA’s enactment","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"remained. The senate bill report noted the same problems with unsolicited commercial e-","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"mail, namely, that the recipient must pay to download and store the messages. S.B. REP.","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"ON ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2752, at 1, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998).","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"Spammers also “disguise[d] advertisements by putting false or misleading information on","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"the subject line of the messages.” Id. At one legislative hearing, a supporter stated that","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"“in most cases, the unsolicited commercial messages appear with deceiving text in the","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"subject field,” using subject lines like “‘Hi There!’, ‘Information Request’ and ‘Your","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"Business Records.’” Br. of Wash. Ass’n of Internet Serv. Providers, State v. Heckel, No.","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"69416-8 (Wash.), reprinted in 13 Briefs 143 Wn.2d (2001) (App. 2 Hr’g on H.B. 2752","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"Before the Wash. H. Comm. on Energy & Utils. (Jan. 28, 1998) (testimony of Ed","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"McNichol) (App. 2 Hr’g)). The supporter noted that this “deceptive practice makes it","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"virtually impossible to discern junk e-mail from the messages critical to my business.”","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"Id. (App. 2 Hr’g).","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"Additionally, the legislature created a task force to “evaluate whether existing laws","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"are sufficient to resolve technical, legal, or financial problems created by the increasing","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"volume of commercial electronic mail messages.” FINAL B. REP. ENGROSSED","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2752, at 2, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1998). This task force","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"generated a report summarizing CEMA and stated that “‘it is unlawful to misrepresentFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"who is really sending the message, where a message is actually originating, or what the","paragraph_id":"para_734","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"true subject of the message is.’” Opening Br. on Certified Question for Defs. at 33","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"(quoting H. OFF. OF PROGRAM RSCH. & S. COMM. SERVS., COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"MESSAGES SELECT TASK FORCE REPORT (Nov. 1998)).","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"This legislative history supports Old Navy’s position that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"prohibits only false or misleading information in e-mail subject lines that conceals the","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"commercial nature of the message. Lawmakers wanted to ease consumers’ access to e-","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"mail by saving time and resources. The legislature sought to ensure that e-mail recipients","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"would know immediately upon receipt who the sender was and whether it was","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"commercial. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that CEMA was meant to address","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"situations such as the one presented in this case, where a clearly identified company","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"sends commercial e-mails that advertise a sale but are misleading about the duration of","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"the sale when read in conjunction with the content of the e-mail.","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"Moreover, CEMA has been amended several times, and these amendments support","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"Old Navy’s interpretation of subsection (1)(b). We discussed these amendments in","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"Wright when interpreting RCW 19.190.040’s damages provision. 189 Wn.2d at 724-25.","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"The legislature first amended CEMA to clarify that a person can violate the CPA by","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"either transmitting or assisting in the transmission of an unsolicited commercial e-mail.","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"Id. at 724. Several years later, the legislature amended CEMA by adding a provision that","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"precluded parties from sending commercial text messages to Washington residents. Id. atFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"724-25. Lastly, the legislature amended CEMA to add protections against phishing.1 Id.","paragraph_id":"para_757","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"at 725. The statute’s amendments are narrow, prohibiting specific deceptive practices","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"that are unique to the electronic medium. This supports a conclusion that subsection","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"(1)(b) was also intended to apply narrowly to solve a specific problem: tricking","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"consumers into opening commercial e-mails disguised as personal or business inquiries.","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"It is also helpful to look at the guidance that appears on the Washington Attorney","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"General’s Office website. Informal guidance appearing on an agency website is not","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"binding and is not a substitute for an official attorney general opinion. Even so, the","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"examples provided here support Old Navy’s interpretation of the statute. The website","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"directs consumers to “[c]arefully examine the body of the email message as it relates to","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"the email’s subject line” and see if “it accurately describe[s] what is contained in the","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"email” to determine whether the subject line would violate CEMA. Washington’s Law,","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"Wash. State Off. of Att’y Gen., https://www.atg.wa.gov/washingtons-law","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"[https://perma.cc/SB2C-6RHJ]. Similarly, the website also states that a subject line does","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"not violate CEMA if it “clearly represents what is being sent.” Id. These statements","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"appear to support Old Navy’s interpretation and suggest that only subject lines concealing","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"that the e-mail is actually an advertisement or solicitation are illegal. But in helping","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"consumers determine what is deceptive, the website also suggests consumers ask","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"1 “‘Phishing’ generally refers to Internet activity using fraudulent e-mails and websites to induce","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"someone to reveal personally identifying information under false pretenses.” Wright, 189 Wn.2d","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"at 725.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"themselves if the subject line creates “a false sense of urgency.” Id. Brown argues that","paragraph_id":"para_781","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"Old Navy’s subject lines misrepresenting the duration of sales create a false sense of","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"urgency and thus, applying this guidance, violate CEMA. However, examples of subject","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"lines that have been found to violate CEMA—such as “board meeting 3ish” and","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"“URGENT – Account Update”—all disguised the fact that the e-mail was truly a","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"solicitation. Id. Thus, the majority of the website’s content supports Old Navy’s","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"interpretation.","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"As the majority points out, we also analyzed CEMA and the problem it was","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"designed to fix in Heckel, when this court considered whether CEMA unconstitutionally","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"burdened interstate commerce. Majority at 16-17 (citing 143 Wn.2d at 831). I disagree,","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"however, with the majority’s conclusion that Heckel does not support a narrower","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"construction of subsection (1)(b). In Heckel, we acknowledged that “the use of false or","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"misleading subject lines further hampers an individual’s ability to use computer time","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"most efficiently.” 143 Wn.2d at 835. We relied on the same legislative history discussed","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"above to find that subject lines like “‘Hi There!,’ ‘Information Request,’ and ‘Your","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"Business Records’” are problematic because they make it difficult to distinguish spam","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"from legitimate messages. Id. After identifying this issue, we stated that senders of","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"unsolicited commercial messages must “use an accurate, nonmisleading subject line.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"at 836.","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"Heckel’s reliance on legislative history is instructive, as is its discussion of CEMA","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"in the context of the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution. StatesFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"violate the dormant commerce clause “when they enact laws that unduly burden interstate","paragraph_id":"para_805","court_paragraph":15},{"text":"commerce.” Heckel, 143 Wn.2d at 832. Heckel concluded that CEMA is facially neutral","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"and that its local benefits “surpass any alleged burden” on interstate commerce. Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"833. Heckel reviewed the costs of spam to Internet providers and users, such as “false or","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"misleading subject lines” that make it “‘virtually impossible’” to distinguish spam from","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"legitimate personal or business messages. Id. at 835, 836. The government has a","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"substantial interest in preventing the cost-shift from spammers to e-mail users, which is","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"akin to telemarketer calls to a “pay-per-minute cellular phone.” Id. at 835. CEMA’s","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"requirement of truth in an e-mail subject header does not burden commerce “but actually","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"‘facilitates it by eliminating fraud and deception’” from commercial messages. Id. at 836","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"(quoting Jack L. Goldsmith & Alan O. Sykes, The Internet and the Dormant Commerce","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"Clause, 110 YALE L.J. 785, 819 (2001)).","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"Inherent in Heckel’s discussion is the link between CEMA’s truthfulness in an e-","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"mail header and preventing distortion of the commercial nature of the message. See id. at","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"835-36. Broadening CEMA’s scope to prohibit any false or misleading e-mail subject line,","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"as Brown urges, cuts this critical link. Instead, Heckel counsels a narrower reading.","paragraph_id":"para_820"},{"text":"The majority’s analysis leaves several important gaps. First, the majority states that","paragraph_id":"para_821"},{"text":"it agrees with Heckel in that we should evaluate “‘the subject line alone’” when determining","paragraph_id":"para_822"},{"text":"whether it is misleading. Majority at 9 (quoting Heckel, 122 Wn. App. at 71). Much like","paragraph_id":"para_823"},{"text":"its broader reasoning, the majority isolates this quote from critical context. It is impossible","paragraph_id":"para_824"},{"text":"to discern if a subject line is misleading without comparing it to the body of the e-mail.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_825"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_826"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_827"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_828"},{"text":"The court’s analysis in Heckel exemplifies this as, although Heckel stated we need only","paragraph_id":"para_829","court_paragraph":16},{"text":"look to the subject line, it went on to explain how the subject line was misleading in","paragraph_id":"para_830"},{"text":"conjunction with the body of the e-mail, which was a commercial advertisement. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_831"},{"text":"Finally, the e-mails sent by Old Navy are very different from the examples in Heckel","paragraph_id":"para_832"},{"text":"and the legislative history. The Old Navy e-mail subject lines show they are commercial","paragraph_id":"para_833"},{"text":"in nature. The e-mail subject lines that Heckel stated would likely violate subsection (1)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_834"},{"text":"(“‘Hi there!,’” “‘Your Business Records,’” “‘Did I get the right email address?,’” “‘For","paragraph_id":"para_835"},{"text":"your review—HANDS OFF!’”) said nothing of the message’s commercial nature. 143","paragraph_id":"para_836"},{"text":"Wn.2d at 835, 829. The legislative history identifies multiple examples of the precise type","paragraph_id":"para_837"},{"text":"of e-mail lawmakers sought to preclude, those that enticed a recipient to download them","paragraph_id":"para_838"},{"text":"and thereby tax the service provider network. Such specific examples cut against the","paragraph_id":"para_839"},{"text":"majority’s expansive reading of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_840"},{"text":"Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_841"},{"text":"In my view, RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) is unambiguous and prohibits only subject","paragraph_id":"para_842"},{"text":"lines with misleading information about the commercial nature of the message. Even if","paragraph_id":"para_843"},{"text":"the majority’s plain meaning analysis provided another reasonable interpretation, the","paragraph_id":"para_844"},{"text":"statute would be ambiguous and require the court to consider its legislative history. It is","paragraph_id":"para_845"},{"text":"clear that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) was enacted to combat the flood of spam to consumers’","paragraph_id":"para_846"},{"text":"in-boxes and to prevent consumers from having to sort through unsolicited commercial e-","paragraph_id":"para_847"},{"text":"mails disguised as something else.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_848"},{"text":"No. 102592-1","paragraph_id":"para_849"},{"text":"Madsen, J., dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_850"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_851"},{"text":"Accordingly, I dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_852","court_paragraph":17},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_853"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_854"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_855"},{"text":"____________________________For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_856"}],"word_count":9255,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"8abb5462b1814d6471094ddfade93e01e30b14b2334a21017c70463df0af48ed","source_url":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1025921.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-11T06:01:16.738+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","verification":{"stored_sha256":"8abb5462b1814d6471094ddfade93e01e30b14b2334a21017c70463df0af48ed","recomputed_sha256":"8abb5462b1814d6471094ddfade93e01e30b14b2334a21017c70463df0af48ed","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T03:51:50.001Z"}},"hash":"sha256:1d5b41392edc5e04a53e9f64f0235f0a17d83cb96769c8088913dff0369da5bb","version":"legal-2026-10-18","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-18+legal-2026-10-18+2026-10-18T01:46:51","content_hash":"sha256:1d5b41392edc5e04a53e9f64f0235f0a17d83cb96769c8088913dff0369da5bb","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T04:51:50.260Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/wash-102-592-1-2025-04-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-be8b8831e951d02726f173fec411a34a","response_hash":"sha256:1d5b41392edc5e04a53e9f64f0235f0a17d83cb96769c8088913dff0369da5bb"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T23:16:39.683Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Awash-102-592-1-2025-04-17&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":36613}}