February 2018 Bar Bulletin
By Gene Barton
In an opinion that is not a model of clarity, a unanimous Washington Supreme Court in the matter of Wright v. Lyft, Inc.,1 has firmly defined when “commercial electronic” messages violate the state’s Consumer Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) of 1998 and give rise to a private right of action under the statute.2 In short, the Court held that only the sending and receipt of an unsolicited, “commercial electronic” message that constitutes “phishing,” as opposed to mere “spam,” constitute a CEMA violation for which the recipient has a private right of action for damages under the Act. However, parties with complaints about other...