Committee hears competing views on bill to limit suits over marketing subject lines

Summary

Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on HB 2274, which would narrow liability under the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act by raising the standard for identifying Washington recipients and removing a per se Consumer Protection Act violation; retailers and industry groups backed the change, while trial lawyers and consumer advocates opposed it.

A Washington House committee on Jan. 14 heard contrasting testimony on House Bill 2274, legislation that would change how the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) is applied and limit certain statutory claims tied to email subject lines.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Larry Springer (45th Legislative District), said the measure responds to a recent Washington Supreme Court decision he said has prompted a surge of lawsuits over routine marketing subject lines. Springer told the Consumer Protection and Business Committee the bill is intended to clarify legislative intent so ordinary promotional language does not create strict liability for large statutory damages.

Megan Mulvihill, staff to the committee, summarized key changes: replacing the statute’s existing “reason to know” standard with a “reliable basis” standard for determining whether an email address is held by a Washington resident; tightening the test for when a subject line is “likely to mislead” by requiring materiality to…

Committee hears competing views on bill to limit suits over marketing subject lines

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading