CEMA is Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act, a 1998 anti-spam law that bars deceptive commercial email and text messages. It applies to car lawsuits when auto-parts sellers, tire retailers, and dealers send Washington residents promotions with false or misleading subject lines.
Ballard Spahr reports the law is codified at RCW 19.190 in its Ballard Spahr CEMA review. A 2025 state Supreme Court decision widened the target. Promotions that create false urgency about a sale deadline can now support a class claim, even if the email body tells a different story.
Official resources:
- Read the official guidance from Wa — Use this primary source to verify the official guidance.
- Read the official notice from Insideprivacy — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What does CEMA ban in messages?
- How are auto companies getting pulled in?
- What payment could a claim involve?
- Do your emails qualify and what should you keep?
What does CEMA ban in messages?
State law makes it unlawful to send a Washington resident a commercial electronic message with false or misleading information in the subject line. The rule covers email and text marketing. It focuses on the subject line itself, not the whole campaign. The Washington Supreme Court read that ban broadly in Brown v.
Old Navy. Covington reports the 5-4 majority held CEMA bans any false subject-line information in its Covington analysis of retail email class actions. Old Navy emails said a promotion ended on a set date, then continued it afterward. A correct detail inside the message did not excuse the subject line.
How are auto companies getting pulled in?
Plaintiffs use the same urgency theory against car-industry sellers. The claims point to tire, parts, and service promotions sent to Washington inboxes. A subject line that misstates duration or deadline is the core allegation. Discount Tire was named in November 2025 putative class actions over urgency and duration subject lines. Automotive-parts seller National Automotive Parts Association was also sued in Bajwa v.
NAPA, King County Case No. 25-2-30048-0. The complaint filed Oct. 13, 2025 alleges NAPA spammed Washington consumers with commercial emails, as shown in the Bajwa v. NAPA complaint.
What payment could a claim involve?
Older cases carry high per-email exposure. Each violating email could mean $500 per recipient, treated as a per se Consumer Protection Act violation. Plaintiffs also sought trebling, so one email to 5,000 recipients could mean $2.5 million.
New cases face a lower cap and harder proof. Seyfarth Shaw explains HB 2274 limits new cases to $100 per email and requires actual or fairly implied knowledge of falsity in its Seyfarth Shaw CEMA amendment update. The change was signed March 23, 2026, took effect June 11, 2026, and does not cut cases started before that date.
Do your emails qualify and what should you keep?
You may fit the pattern if you lived in Washington when the message arrived. You received a commercial email or text promoting auto products or services.
The subject line promised a deadline, discount, or urgent benefit that was false or misleading. Save proof before you delete or unsubscribe: Full headers help show routing and timing. A consumer attorney can compare your messages to the Brown standard and the filing date cutoff.
- Keep the full subject line, sender address, and date.
- Save the complete body and linked offer terms.
- Keep screenshots showing the sale continued past the stated deadline.
- Note whether you received repeat messages with the same claim.