Wright v. Lyft, Inc.
94162-9
Wash.Dec 14, 2017Background
- Lyft's app allows users to send invitation texts to contacts offering ride credit; Kenneth Wright received one such unsolicited text inviting him to download the Lyft app.
- Wright sued Lyft in federal court as a putative class representative, alleging violations of Washington's Consumer Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), ch. 19.190 RCW, and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch. 19.86 RCW.
- The federal district court denied dismissal of Wright's state claims and certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court about (1) whether CEMA itself creates a private right of action for damages, and (2) whether CEMA’s liquidated damages provision satisfies the CPA’s injury and causation elements.
- CEMA was enacted in 1998 and amended in 1999, 2003 (adding unsolicited commercial text messages), and 2005 (adding anti‑phishing protections and an express civil action tied to phishing violations).
- The Washington Supreme Court reviewed statutory text, legislative history, and precedent and limited its review to the certified record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (Lyft) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 19.190.040 (CEMA’s liquidated damages provision) creates a private cause of action for damages under CEMA | CEMA’s damages provision creates a direct private right to recover liquidated damages for unsolicited texts | RCW 19.190.040 is a measure of damages to be enforced via the CPA, not an independent cause of action | No — CEMA does not create a standalone private cause of action for monetary damages except as expressly provided for phishing in the 2005 amendment (RCW 19.190.090) |
| Whether RCW 19.190.040 establishes the CPA’s injury and causation elements (i.e., whether liquidated damages are recoverable without separate proof of injury and causation) | The liquidated damages provision furnishes per se injury and causation (automatic damages) for CEMA violations | Plaintiffs must still prove injury in fact and causation to recover under the CPA | Yes — RCW 19.190.040’s automatic damages, together with CEMA’s purpose and history, establish injury and causation for CPA claims arising from CEMA violations without separate proof of injury and causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660 (Wash. 2003) (standard for de novo review of certified legal questions)
- Hangman Ridge Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (Wash. 1986) (five‑element test for CPA claims)
- Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 (Wash. 1990) (three‑part test for implying a private right of action)
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 86 Wn.2d 310 (Wash. 1976) (rule to choose statutory interpretation that best advances legislative purpose)
- Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (district court analysis limiting CEMA damages to phishing after 2005 amendment)