Litigation Update: Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act

Since 2023, Washington courts have seen more than 25 cases filed for alleged violations of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). 

This Article outlines recent litigation trends and key takeaways following a Washington Supreme Court decision regarding CEMA’s reach.

What Is CEMA?

Washington’s CEMA was enacted in 1998. Among other provisions, this decades-old law prohibits the transmission of a “commercial electronic mail message” or a “commercial electronic text message” to Washington residents containing false or misleading information in the message’s subject line. RCW 19.190.020(1)(b). The statute defines “commercial electronic mail message” as an email “sent for the purpose of promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” RCW 19.190.010(2). Similarly, a “commercial electronic text message” is defined as “an electronic text message sent to promote real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” RCW 19.190.010(3).

CEMA also provides for significant penalties. Violations of CEMA constitute per se violations of the state’s Consumer Protection Act. RCW 19.190.030. Under CEMA, damages to the recipient of a commercial electronic mail message or a commercial electronic text message sent in violation of this statute amount to $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater. RCW 19.190.040(1).

Recent Developments

Since 2023, Washington courts have seen novel interpretations of CEMA as parties attempt to apply this 1998 law—originally designed for the dial-up era—to the modern internet. These cases largely allege that email subject lines claiming a “limited time sale” are false or misleading because the deal is actually available for a longer period.

In April 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion interpreting CEMA’s statutory language in response to a certified question from a Washington federal court. The Washington Supreme Court held that CEMA requires accurate information in the subject line itself, regardless of the content of the remainder of the message.

The court distinguished actionable email subject lines under CEMA from subject lines that constitute puffery. The court recognized that puffery—including subjective statements, opinions, and hyperbole—is not actionable under CEMA. For example, the court considered “Best Deals of the Year” to be puffery, even if a better deal is later offered, because “market conditions change such that a better sale is later available.”

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

• Examining email subject lines. The Washington Supreme Court’s expansive reading of CEMA suggests caution is warranted when sending “commercial electronic mail messages”—that is, promotional or marketing emails—to Washington residents. Ensure that email subject lines are accurate and defensible.
• Distinguishing puffery. According to the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion, email subject lines that communicate puffery—such as subjective statements, opinions, and hyperbole—are not actionable under CEMA. Puffery statements may therefore have greater protection from CEMA challenges.
• Monitoring the courts. The Washington Supreme Court’s decision is an important development, and further litigation will continue to shape the interpretation and enforcement of CEMA. Among other things, a pending motion to dismiss in a federal CEMA case argues that CEMA is preempted under federal law.

Perkins Coie has extensive experience litigating class-action matters in Washington’s state and federal courts. If you have any questions concerning the developments discussed in this Article, please contact members of Perkins Coie’s CEMA team.