For greater than 25 years, Washingtonians have had client safety from, amongst different legal guidelines, the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The legislation was created in 1998 to guard Washingtonians from misleading advertising practices by retailers by way of emails and textual content messages. It prohibits the sending of emails that “include false or deceptive data within the topic line.”
However the state Supreme Courtroom’s 2025 expansive interpretation of that legislation has put some retailers at nice danger of financially crippling class motion lawsuits. A proposed invoice tweaking the wording of the legislation may very well be a possible repair.
Below the legislation, if a recipient of a promotional electronic mail deems the topic line to be misleading or false, the recipient of the e-mail can file a grievance towards the retailer. The retailer may very well be fined $500 per electronic mail, which might end in hundreds of thousands of {dollars}.
The aim of an electronic mail topic line is to let the recipient know what the e-mail or textual content is about. In promoting, it really works to alert potential customers to bargains or gross sales.
However a lawsuit introduced towards the retailer Previous Navy that made its technique to the state Supreme Courtroom has modified the sport. Previous Navy argued that CEMA prohibits topic strains that mislead shoppers solely in regards to the content material or objective of the e-mail. The court docket rejected that and interpreted the legislation extra broadly. It dominated that the legislation bans advertising emails despatched to Washington residents that include any false or deceptive data within the topic line, not simply data pertaining to the content material of the e-mail.
In Brown v. Previous Navy, the plaintiffs challenged a sequence of promotional emails that conveyed a way of urgency, suggesting a sale would “finish right now” or “expire quickly”— although it was prolonged.
Because the Brown v. Old Navy determination in April, greater than 80 class motion lawsuits have been filed underneath CEMA. Earlier than the choice there have been eight subject-line lawsuits filed since 1998.
“The way in which the brand new instances are enjoying out is they’re actually rewarding people who find themselves not injured,” mentioned Meegan Brooks, an legal professional who represents the retail affiliation. “The concept (of the proposed invoice) is not to remove the flexibility of people who find themselves truly injured to sue for deceptive topic strains.”
House Bill 2274 would chop the broad interpretation of the legislation.
“We’re taking a look at language to tighten it up,” mentioned Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland, himself a former retailer for greater than 40 years. “Folks ought to have the chance to go after misleading advertisers. However going after them basically or just because you possibly can, that’s a recipe for companies to say ‘why am I in enterprise.’ ”
Whereas the invoice has a lot benefit, legislators should ensure shoppers are shielded from unscrupulous and misleading ways by retailers, particularly in a aggressive market. HB 2274, now within the Home’s Shopper Safety and Enterprise Committee, would do exactly that.
