Washington State Supreme Court Clarifies Injury Plaintiffs Must Show to Bring State CPA Claim

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued an important decision regarding the type of injury that a plaintiff must allege for a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. In Montes v. Sparc Group LLC, the court clarified the rule for individuals bringing suit under the state Consumer Protection Act by requiring a quantifiable economic injury.

In Montes v. Sparc Group LLC, a plaintiff bought $6 leggings that were advertised as discounted from $12.50, even though the product had rarely been sold at the higher non-discount price. Alleging that the retailer unfairly misrepresented the discount price, the plaintiff filed suit under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The plaintiff alleged that she was injured because she would not have made the purchase absent that misrepresentation.

Washington’s CPA requires individuals bringing suit to show that they suffered an injury to their “business or property.” The district court dismissed the CPA claim, reasoning that the plaintiff suffered no cognizable injury because she received the product exactly for the price she paid.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified to the Washington Supreme Court (the Court) the dispositive question of whether a consumer sustains an injury under the CPA when she purchases a product in reliance on a misrepresented discount or price history.

CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF THE STATE’S CPA

In Montes, the Court held that the CPA requires a “quantifiable economic injury.” The Court deemed “intangible” injuries such as “dashed expectations” as insufficient to sustain the act’s injury requirement.

Applying this holding to the plaintiff’s claim, the Court explained that the plaintiff did not suffer a quantifiable economic injury because she received a product of equal value to the price that she paid. While she may have suffered “disappointed expectations” because she did not receive the deal she expected, that was insufficient to meet the CPA’s injury requirement. The Court applied this rule, even where advertising is deemed deceptive.

The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s leggings were worth the price she paid. As such, there was no economic harm—even if she may have been influenced to purchase the item because she believed she was getting a bargain—on the grounds that “the mere fact of a retail transaction does not imply economic loss.”

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Montes is a significant case for defendants in cases involving Washington CPA claims as it will present limitations on the types of consumer protection cases plaintiffs can pursue.

Defendants facing CPA claims in Washington should consider the following actions:

• Ensure fact and expert discovery are tailored to test the existence and nature of any alleged injury, including whether the plaintiff can identify a concrete, quantifiable economic loss as opposed to a subjective purchasing preference.
• Evaluate whether plaintiffs have met their burden of showing a cognizable injury to “business or property” and use targeted motion practice—particularly at summary judgment and in opposition to class certification—to challenge claims resting on speculative or noneconomic theories of harm.
• Develop evidence and arguments addressing materiality and causation, including whether the alleged misrepresentation actually influenced the purchasing decision and whether any purported “price premium” can be reliably measured.
• Consider early case strategy, including whether the absence of a viable injury theory can be leveraged at the pleading stage or through class certification to narrow or defeat the claims.

While Montes will likely have a significant impact on CPA class actions, it is important to note that its reach is limited to cases brought under the statute’s private right of action. When a CPA action is brought by the Washington Attorney General, the same injury requirement arguably does not apply, which preserves a separate and potentially broader enforcement pathway.