Washington tool

Washington CPA Demand Strength Analyzer

Use this tool to triage a Washington Consumer Protection Act claim against the Hangman Ridge five-element framework before deciding whether a demand letter, small claims action, or AG complaint makes sense. The tool walks you through the elements codified at RCW 19.86.020, RCW 19.86.093, and RCW 19.86.090, scores demand strength out of 100, and lists the documents you still need to gather.

This is a triage tool, not legal advice. The score reflects how a Washington CPA practitioner would weigh the five elements at the demand-letter stage. Citations verified against Chapter 19.86 RCW on app.leg.wa.gov. The five-element Washington CPA framework is commonly associated with Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986), and the public-interest element is now codified at RCW 19.86.093. Confirm case citations before using them in filed papers.

Answer the nine questions below. The first five questions correspond to the five elements of a Washington Consumer Protection Act claim. The remaining four questions cover evidence, business response, contract terms, and amount at issue.

1Element 1: Unfair or deceptive act

How strongly does the conduct look unfair or deceptive?

Examples: clearly yes = bait-and-switch advertising, fake reviews, undisclosed material fees. Probably yes = misleading or buried disclosure. Unclear = aggressive but technically truthful. Probably no = ordinary commercial puffery. Clearly no = no act or practice at issue. Per RCW 19.86.020, the act need not be intentional.

Clearly yes (bait-and-switch, false statement, undisclosed fee) Probably yes (misleading or buried disclosure) Unclear (aggressive but arguably truthful) Probably no (ordinary commercial puffery) Clearly no (no real act at issue)

2Element 2: Trade or commerce

Did the conduct occur in trade or commerce?

RCW 19.86.010 defines trade or commerce broadly: "the sale of assets or services, and any commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the state of Washington." Disputes between two private parties with no business on either side rarely qualify.

Yes, the defendant is a business and the conduct relates to its trade Mixed: a private party acting in a business-like capacity No, both sides are purely private (no business on either side)

3Element 3: Public interest impact

How much does the conduct affect more than just you?

Per RCW 19.86.093, public interest is satisfied if the conduct (a) violated a statute that incorporates the CPA, (b) violated a statute with a public-interest declaration, or (c) injured or had the capacity to injure other persons. Factors: was the act in the course of the defendant's business, are others at risk, is there a pattern?

Clearly affects others (pattern, repeated conduct, similar complaints elsewhere) A pattern is likely (the conduct looks like the business's standard practice) One-off transaction with no obvious pattern Purely private dispute (no plausible effect on others)

4Element 4: Injury to business or property

What is the dollar amount of your out-of-pocket and business-property loss?

Per RCW 19.86.090, the injury must be to business or property. Pure emotional distress and personal injury are not recoverable. Money paid, value not received, time you had to pay someone else to fix the problem, and repair costs all count. Enter the total dollar amount.

$

Categories of loss involved (check all that apply):

Out-of-pocket money paid Repair or replacement costs Time and effort to fix the problem Business reputation or operating loss

5Element 5: Causation

Was the deceptive act the proximate cause of your loss?

Causation has to be pleaded with specifics. Was the deceptive act what actually caused the dollar loss, or did other factors (a market shift, a separate decision, an intervening event) cause it? Conclusory causation allegations get dismissed in Washington CPA cases.

Clearly proximate (the act is the direct cause of the loss) Probably proximate (some intervening factors, but the act is the main cause) Mixed causes (multiple factors contributed) Probably not (other factors largely caused the loss) Clearly not (the loss would have happened anyway)

6Documents you can produce

Which of these do you currently have?

A CPA demand letter is far stronger when supported by contemporaneous documents. Check everything you can produce in writing today. The result will list what is missing.

Written contract, agreement, or proposal Advertising or marketing language relied upon Emails or text messages with the business Payment records (statements, receipts, transfer logs) Photos or video of the goods or services Expert opinion or third-party inspection Prior written demand sent to the business Written response from the business

7Business response so far

How has the business responded to date?

A written response (even a denial) creates a clear record. Silence after a prior demand is also useful, but a verbal denial leaves nothing to work with.

I have not yet contacted the business Verbal denial only (no writing) Written denial with stated reasons Partial settlement offer (refund, credit, or fix) Silence after a prior written demand

8Arbitration clause in the contract

Does the contract require arbitration?

An arbitration clause does not kill a CPA claim, but it changes the forum and the dynamics. Filing fees, fee-shifting, and discovery may all look different in AAA or JAMS than in Washington Superior Court.

Yes, there is an arbitration clause No arbitration clause in the contract Unsure (need to re-read the contract) There is no written contract

Analyze CPA strength

How the score is calculated

The score weighs the five statutory CPA elements against the practical factors that affect whether a demand letter actually moves a Washington business to settle. The five-element framework comes from Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986), and the public-interest element is codified at RCW 19.86.093. Weights total 100 points before the modifiers.

• Unfair or deceptive act (RCW 19.86.020): up to 25 points.
• Trade or commerce (RCW 19.86.010): up to 15 points; a private-only dispute scores zero on this element.
• Public interest (RCW 19.86.093): up to 25 points; a one-off transaction with no plausible effect on others scores low.
• Injury to business or property (RCW 19.86.090): up to 15 points; the dollar amount must be above zero to score on this element.
• Causation: up to 20 points.
• Documents available: up to 10 bonus points, capped so the total never exceeds 100.
• Arbitration clause: minus 5 points to reflect that AAA or JAMS may change the forum dynamics.
• Business response: plus 5 points for a written denial (clear record), plus 3 points if you have not yet contacted the business (room to send a clean first demand), zero on silence or verbal denial.

The four verdict bands are 80 to 100 (strong CPA demand letter candidate), 60 to 79 (moderate, demand letter likely productive), 40 to 59 (weak CPA, consider breach of contract or small claims), and 0 to 39 (likely not a CPA case, consider small claims or a refund demand).

Source notes

• RCW 19.86.010: trade and commerce definition. Source confirmed against app.leg.wa.gov.
• RCW 19.86.020: unfair or deceptive acts declared unlawful. Source confirmed.
• RCW 19.86.090: private right of action, actual damages, discretionary treble damages capped at $25,000 on RCW 19.86.020 violations, mandatory fee shift to a prevailing plaintiff. Source confirmed.
• RCW 19.86.093: codifies the public-interest element with three alternative paths. Source confirmed.
• RCW 19.86.120: four-year statute of limitations from accrual. Source confirmed.
• Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986): commonly cited as the source of the five-element framework. The statutory codification at RCW 19.86.093 is what this tool relies on. Confirm the case citation before using it in filed papers.

For background on when a Washington business dispute meets the five-element CPA test, see my Washington Consumer Protection Act demand letter resource. For other Washington tools, see my Washington Business Law Resources hub.