Washington Consumer Protection Act—Public Interest and the Private Litigant
Dove, David J.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by2
- 1986Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance Wash.
- 1986Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, a private individual has standing to sue for unfair or deceptive business practices. The private litigant may not, however, use the Act as a vehicle to remedy those wrongs that impact only the private individual, because the Act's declared purpose is to protect the public interest. The public interest requirement thus imposes a restriction on the otherwise liberal construction of the Act. The Washington Supreme Court has established two tests by which the public interest requirement may be met: (1) the per se test and (2) the Anhold v. Daniels test.