Washington CEMA and Text Messages: RCW 19.190 Guide
Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), codified at RCW 19.190, regulates commercial email and commercial text messages on two different theories. For email, RCW 19.190.020 prohibits messages that contain false or misleading information in the subject line or that disguise the point of origin or transmission path. For text messages, RCW 19.190.060 goes further and prohibits sending a commercial electronic text message to a telephone number assigned to a Washington resident at all, unless one of the narrow exceptions in RCW 19.190.070 applies. Under either provision, a violation is treated as a per se violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
CEMA is one of the older state-level anti-spam statutes in the country, first enacted for email in the late 1990s and later extended to cover text messages sent to wireless devices. Because it operates independently of federal law, a message that satisfies the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) can still create liability under CEMA if it is deceptive, and vice versa. Any organization that sends marketing or informational texts to Washington phone numbers needs to understand both.
What CEMA Actually Prohibits
CEMA has two halves that work differently, and conflating them is the most common mistake organizations make with this statute.
The email half, RCW 19.190.020, targets deception. It prohibits a commercial electronic mail message that uses a third party's internet domain name without permission, that misrepresents or obscures information used to identify the point of origin or transmission path, or that contains false or misleading information in the subject line.
The text message half, RCW 19.190.060, is a prohibition rather than a deception rule. It states that no person conducting business in the state may initiate or assist in the transmission of a commercial electronic text message to a telephone number assigned to a Washington resident for cellular telephone or pager service, and that doing so is an unfair or deceptive act under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. RCW 19.190.070 supplies the only two exceptions:
- The message is transmitted at the direction of the cellular or pager service provider to its own existing subscriber at no cost to the subscriber, and the subscriber has not indicated they are unwilling to receive further commercial text messages
- The subscriber has clearly and affirmatively consented in advance to receive the text messages
That distinction is the practical takeaway for anyone texting Washington numbers. An honest, well-identified commercial text can still violate CEMA if the recipient never affirmatively opted in, because for texts the statute turns on advance consent rather than on accuracy alone. The TCPA also turns on consent, but the two statutes use different consent standards and are enforced through different mechanisms, so satisfying one does not establish compliance with the other.
Who CEMA Applies To
CEMA reaches any person or entity that initiates, or knowingly assists in initiating, a commercial electronic text message to a Washington resident. It is not limited to companies based in Washington. If your organization texts consumers who happen to live in Washington, the statute can apply regardless of where you are headquartered, which is part of why Washington's statute shows up so often in nationwide compliance reviews. Our roundup of text message marketing laws by state covers how CEMA fits alongside other state-level statutes that layer on top of federal rules.
The Washington Consumer Protection Act Connection
CEMA does not create its own freestanding damages framework in isolation. Instead, RCW 19.190.030 declares that an email violation of RCW 19.190.020 is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for purposes of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), chapter 19.86 RCW, and RCW 19.190.060 contains a parallel declaration for commercial electronic text messages. That linkage matters procedurally: because a CEMA violation is a per se violation of the WCPA, a plaintiff does not have to separately prove that the practice was unfair or deceptive under the WCPA's general standard. The CEMA violation itself satisfies that element.
This per se treatment is a major reason CEMA has generated substantial litigation activity in Washington relative to its age. Plaintiffs can point to a narrow, well-defined statutory violation rather than litigating the broader, more fact-intensive question of what counts as an unfair or deceptive practice under the WCPA generally.
Statutory Damages: What Changed in 2026
Washington's legislature amended CEMA's damages provision through House Bill 2274, effective June 11, 2026, in response to a rise in CEMA litigation. Before the amendment, RCW 19.190.040 set statutory damages at the greater of $500 per violation or actual damages. The amendment reduced that baseline to the greater of $100 per violation or actual damages, for actions commenced on or after the effective date regardless of when the cause of action arose. The same bill also added a knowledge element to the email subject line prohibition, requiring that the sender act on actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances. Damages to an interactive computer service (as opposed to an individual recipient) remain calculated separately under the statute.
RCW 19.190.040 contains no separate pattern-or-practice enhancement. Enhanced relief comes from the WCPA instead: because a CEMA violation proceeds as a WCPA claim, RCW 19.86.090 allows a court to treble actual damages subject to the statutory cap in that section, and a prevailing plaintiff can recover attorney fees and costs under the WCPA's fee-shifting provision, which is a significant factor in how these cases get litigated and settled.
| Item | Before June 11, 2026 | After June 11, 2026 (current) |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline statutory damages | Greater of $500 or actual damages | Greater of $100 or actual damages |
| Enhanced damages | None in RCW 19.190.040; WCPA trebling of actual damages under RCW 19.86.090 | None in RCW 19.190.040; WCPA trebling of actual damages under RCW 19.86.090 |
| Attorney fees | Available via WCPA fee-shifting | Available via WCPA fee-shifting |
| Applies to actions filed | Before June 11, 2026 | On or after June 11, 2026 |
How CEMA Interacts With the TCPA
The TCPA, at 47 USC 227, is the federal statute most organizations think of first when they consider text message compliance, and for good reason: it restricts automated and prerecorded calls and texts absent the required consent, and it carries its own private right of action with statutory damages per violation. CEMA operates on a different axis. The TCPA asks whether the recipient agreed to receive the message. CEMA asks whether the message's origin and content were honestly represented, separate from the consent question.
These two frameworks are not mutually exclusive, and a single text message campaign can create exposure under both if it lacks proper consent and also obscures its sender identity. Federal courts have rejected arguments that CAN-SPAM, the federal email marketing statute, preempts CEMA's email subject line provisions, relying on the savings clause in CAN-SPAM that preserves state laws prohibiting falsity or deception. A January 2026 ruling from the Western District of Washington took that position. Preemption arguments aimed at CEMA's text message provision are still being litigated separately, so treat that question as unsettled rather than resolved. Organizations building a compliance program should treat consent (governed primarily by the TCPA) and message honesty and identification (governed by statutes like CEMA) as two separate checklists, not one. Our TCPA compliance checklist covers the federal consent-and-opt-out side in detail, and general legality questions are addressed in our overview of whether mass texting is legal.
Practical Steps for Texting Washington Residents
Because CEMA's text message provision turns on advance consent, and its email provision turns on accuracy and identification, the practical compliance steps cover both:
- Obtain and document clear, affirmative advance consent from the subscriber before sending any commercial text message to a Washington number, since RCW 19.190.070 makes that the operative exception to the RCW 19.190.060 prohibition
- Identify your organization clearly in the message or in the first message of a conversation, using a name the recipient will recognize
- Never use a phone number, short code, or sender identifier that belongs to another party without authorization
- Do not alter or spoof the routing information a carrier or platform attaches to the message
- Keep the stated purpose of the message consistent with its actual content; do not disguise a marketing message as an account or service notification
- Maintain records showing who sent each message, when, and through what platform, so you can respond to a complaint or inquiry
- Layer TCPA-compliant consent and opt-out handling on top of CEMA's own advance-consent and honest-identification requirements, since the two statutes set different standards and are enforced separately
These practices reduce exposure under CEMA specifically, but they also tend to reduce exposure under other state anti-spam and consumer protection statutes that use similar deception-based standards, since Washington is not the only state with a text-message-specific anti-spam law.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Requirements vary by jurisdiction and change over time, so confirm your own obligations with qualified counsel or the relevant regulator.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act?
The Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190, is a state statute with two prohibitions. RCW 19.190.020 bars commercial email that contains false or misleading subject line information or that disguises the message's point of origin. RCW 19.190.060 bars commercial text messages to a telephone number assigned to a Washington resident unless an exception in RCW 19.190.070 applies, the main one being clear and affirmative advance consent. A violation is treated as a per se violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Does CEMA apply to text messages, not just email?
Yes, and the text message rule is stricter than the email rule. RCW 19.190.060 prohibits initiating or assisting in the transmission of a commercial electronic text message to a telephone number assigned to a Washington resident, rather than only prohibiting deceptive messages. RCW 19.190.070 provides the exceptions, the practical one being that the subscriber clearly and affirmatively consented in advance.
What are the current statutory damages under CEMA?
For actions filed on or after June 11, 2026, statutory damages under CEMA are the greater of $100 per violation or actual damages, following an amendment enacted by House Bill 2274. RCW 19.190.040 itself contains no pattern-or-practice multiplier; enhanced relief runs through the Washington Consumer Protection Act instead. Actions filed before that date are governed by the prior $500 baseline.
Is CEMA the same as the TCPA?
No. The TCPA is a federal statute focused on whether a recipient consented to receive automated calls or texts, under 47 USC 227. CEMA is a Washington state statute focused on whether a commercial message honestly identifies its sender and origin. A single campaign can potentially violate both statutes at once for different reasons.
Who can bring a claim under CEMA?
Because a CEMA violation is a per se violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, an individual recipient in Washington can bring a claim without separately proving the practice was unfair or deceptive under the WCPA's general standard. Attorney fees and costs may also be available to a prevailing plaintiff under the WCPA's fee-shifting provision.
Does honest, consented-to marketing texting violate CEMA?
Generally no, provided the consent piece is real. Under RCW 19.190.070 a commercial text message is permitted where the subscriber has clearly and affirmatively consented in advance. Honesty alone is not enough for text messages, though: an accurate, well-identified message sent without that advance consent can still fall within the RCW 19.190.060 prohibition, and separate TCPA obligations apply on top.
Does CEMA apply to businesses located outside Washington?
Generally yes. RCW 19.190.060 reaches a person conducting business in the state who texts a number assigned to a Washington resident, and courts have read that reach broadly rather than limiting it to companies headquartered in Washington. Whether a specific out-of-state sender is conducting business in the state is fact-specific, so confirm with counsel rather than assuming either answer.
How does CEMA fit with other states' text messaging laws?
Washington is one of several states with its own text message or anti-spam statute layered on top of federal law. The specifics, including damages amounts and what conduct is prohibited, vary by state, so organizations texting consumers nationwide typically need to review each applicable state law rather than relying on federal compliance alone.
Stay compliant while you scale your texting program
FRANSiS is an AI powered SMS platform built for organizations that need consent tracking, clear sender identification, and audit-ready records across every conversation. If you are building or reviewing a text messaging compliance program that spans multiple states, contact us to talk through how FRANSiS supports that workflow.
