Consulta de leyes por estado › Errores de crédito › Washington

Errores de crédito en Washington: qué dice la ley

Hay un error en mi reporte de crédito

Ley estatal

Lo que dice la ley

Límite de reclamos menores

$10,000

RCW 12.40.010(1): the small claims department of the district court has jurisdiction "in cases for the recovery of money only if the amount claimed does not exceed: (a) Ten thousand dollars in cases brought by a natural person; or (b) Five thousand dollars in all other cases." A consumer suing personally uses the $10,000 ceiling.

Ver la regla completa

RCW 19.86.090 separately allows a CPA action "in the district court" for actual damages and fees with discretionary trebling up to $25,000, subject to the district-court jurisdictional amount in RCW 3.66.020 (not read for this file).

Sección del código

RCW 19.182.005 through 19.182.902 (chapter 19.182 RCW), effective January 1, 1994 (RCW 19.182.902). Medical-debt provisions added by 2025 c 145 (ESSB 5480), effective July 27, 2025: RCW 19.182.040(1)(g), RCW 19.16.100(11), RCW 19.16.250(28)(a)(iii), RCW 70.41.400(2), RCW 70.54.475.

Ver la regla completa

Security freeze: RCW 19.182.170-.230. Remedies: RCW 19.182.150 (via the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW). Limitations: RCW 19.182.120.

Daños legales

Against a consumer reporting agency (and other persons bound by chapter 19.182, e.g. users taking adverse action and employers procuring reports), via the Consumer Protection Act: RCW 19.182.150 — "the consumer shall be awarded actual damages and costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

Ver la regla completa

However, where there has been willful failure to comply with any requirement imposed under this chapter, the consumer shall be awarded actual damages, a monetary penalty of one thousand dollars, and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court." LIMITS in the same field: (1) the $1,000 is a single "monetary penalty" conditioned on "willful failure" — the text does not say "per violation" and does not authorize punitive damages; (2) there is no minimum statutory damage for non-willful violations (actual damages only, plus fees); (3) burden is "a preponderance of the evidence"; (4) whether the CPA's discretionary treble damages (RCW 19.86.090: "up to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained", capped at $25,000 for RCW 19.86.020 violations) stack on top of the RCW 19.182.150 award is not resolved on the face of either statute — do not promise trebling; (5) furnishers are not liable under RCW 19.182.150 for ordinary reporting errors because chapter 19.182 imposes no duty on them (see furnisher_duty). Compared with federal §1681n ($100-$1,000 statutory damages plus punitive damages for willful violations) the state remedy is not larger; its practical additions are mandatory fee-shifting for any proven violation and the CPA/Attorney General enforcement hook. SCOPE LIMIT ON THE RIGHT ITSELF: the RCW 19.182.150 award is obtained only through a private Consumer Protection Act action under RCW 19.86.090, whose first sentence limits the action to 'Any person who is injured in his or her business or property'. Washington courts read that phrase to exclude personal injury and emotional distress (Ambach v. French, 167 Wn.2d 167, 216 P.3d 405 (2009)); whether RCW 19.182.150's 'actual damages' language displaces that limit is unresolved. Credit denials, higher interest, and out-of-pocket dispute costs are the safe categories of injury to plead; distress alone is not.

Plazo de investigación

30 días

RCW 19.182.090(1) requires reinvestigation "before the end of thirty business days, beginning on the date the agency receives the notice from the consumer." Thirty business days is roughly six calendar weeks, so it is a looser deadline than the FCRA's 30 calendar days.

Ver la regla completa

Because the bureau must satisfy both laws, the federal deadline controls in practice. The state act has no 45-day variant. Furnisher notice: "Before the end of the five business-day period" (RCW 19.182.090(2)) — same as federal §1681i(a)(2)(A). Results notice: "within five business days" of completion (RCW 19.182.090(8)(a)) — same as federal §1681i(a)(6)(A). A demand letter to a bureau may say that Washington law independently requires a free reinvestigation and deletion of unverifiable items, but should state the deadline as the federal 30 days.

Washington runs its own reinvestigation clock. Under RCW 19.182.090(1), where a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of an item in the consumer's file and notifies the agency directly, the agency "shall reinvestigate without charge and record the current status of the disputed information before the end of thirty business days, beginning on the date the agency receives the notice from the consumer." Thirty business days covers a longer stretch of calendar than the federal period in 15 U.S.C.

Ver la regla completa

§1681i(a)(1)(A), which requires the agency to "conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate" and to record its current status, or delete the item under §1681i(a)(5), "before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller."

Neither period is flat. The federal 30 days "may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation" (§1681i(a)(1)(B)), and that extension is unavailable once, within the 30 days, the disputed information is found inaccurate or incomplete or the agency determines it cannot be verified (§1681i(a)(1)(C)). Either agency may also stop early: the federal agency may terminate a reinvestigation it "reasonably determines" is frivolous or irrelevant, including for the consumer's failure to supply sufficient information (§1681i(a)(3)(A)), while the state provision says only that the agency "determines" the dispute frivolous or irrelevant (RCW 19.182.090(3)(a)); whether those two standards mean the same thing is not resolved by either text. Both then require notice to the consumer within five business days of that determination (§1681i(a)(3)(B); RCW 19.182.090(3)(b)). Resellers are exempt from the federal section except as provided in §1681i(f)(2) (§1681i(f)(1)); the state subsection is written for a consumer who notifies the agency directly and sets out no indirect route through a reseller.

How the two periods interact is not settled by either text. Neither RCW 19.182.090 nor 15 U.S.C. §1681i says whether Washington's thirty-business-day period survives alongside the federal one, or which of the two controls a given dispute. The federal preemption provisions are not part of either section and are not among the sources behind this page, so this page states both periods and does not state which one displaces the other.

Cuándo puede extenderse

No Washington overlay — federal 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1)(B) governs (up to 15 additional days when the consumer submits new relevant information during the 30-day period).

Ver la regla completa

Chapter 19.182 RCW contains no extension provision; its only timing escape is RCW 19.182.090(3)(a), which lets a bureau "terminate a reinvestigation" it determines is "frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure of the consumer to provide sufficient information", with written reasons due within five business days (RCW 19.182.090(3)(b)).

Obligación del buró

A consumer reporting agency must (a) "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" (RCW 19.182.060(2)); (b) on a direct dispute, "reinvestigate without charge and record the current status of the disputed information before the end of thirty business days" (RCW 19.182.090(1)); (c) notify the…

Ver la regla completa

furnisher within five business days (RCW 19.182.090(2)); (d) "promptly delete" information found inaccurate or that "cannot be verified" (RCW 19.182.090(5)(a)); (e) not reinsert deleted information unless the furnisher "verifies that the information is complete and accurate" (RCW 19.182.090(5)(b)(i)); (f) send written results within five business days of completing the reinvestigation (RCW 19.182.090(8)); (g) accept a 100-word statement of dispute (RCW 19.182.090(6)). SCOPE LIMIT: the agency may terminate a reinvestigation it determines is "frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure of the consumer to provide sufficient information" (RCW 19.182.090(3)(a)). These duties are the same as or weaker than FCRA §1681i; they are not preempted (the chapter was in effect on September 30, 1996, so 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1)(B)'s grandfather clause applies), but a letter gains nothing by citing the state deadline in place of the federal one.

Verbatim RCW 19.182.090(1): "If the completeness or accuracy of an item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of the dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate without charge and record the current status of…

Ver la regla completa

the disputed information before the end of thirty business days, beginning on the date the agency receives the notice from the consumer." RCW 19.182.090(5)(a): "If, after a reinvestigation under subsection (1) of this section of information disputed by a consumer, the information is found to be inaccurate or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete the information from the consumer's file." RCW 19.182.090(4): the agency "shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer". Reinsertion notice under the state act is within thirty business days (RCW 19.182.090(5)(b)(ii)) — federal §1681i(a)(5)(B)(ii) requires five business days, so the federal rule is the one to cite. Nationwide agencies must give a toll-free number with "adequately trained personnel" (RCW 19.182.090(9)).

Obligación del proveedor de datos

No Washington overlay for ordinary tradelines — federal 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b) governs. Chapter 19.182 RCW imposes no accuracy or dispute-investigation duty on furnishers; the only furnisher-facing text is RCW 19.182.090(5)(b)(i) (a bureau may not reinsert deleted data unless the furnisher "verifies that the information is complete and accurate"), and RCW 19.182.080(6) actually bars negligence/defamation/privacy suits against "a person who provides information to a consumer reporting agency" for "unintentional error" except as provided in RCW 19.182.150.

Ver la regla completa

EXCEPTION, medical debt only (effective July 27, 2025): hospitals, physician groups and professional partners "may not furnish information relating to a medical debt as defined in RCW 19.16.100 to a consumer credit reporting agency" (RCW 70.41.400(2)(a)); licensed collection agencies may not "Report adverse information to consumer credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus" when "the claim involves medical debt" (RCW 19.16.250(28)(a)(iii)); and "A medical debt is void and unenforceable if a person, health care provider, health care facility, or licensed collection agency violates this section by furnishing information regarding the medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency" (RCW 70.54.475(1)). PREEMPTION RISK, same field: these furnisher bans regulate the subject matter of §1681s-2 and are NOT among the two provisions saved by §1681t(b)(1)(F) (only Cal. Civ. Code §1785.25(a) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 §54A(a)); a furnisher has a real preemption defense and no court has yet ruled on the Washington sections.

Derecho a reportes gratis

Washington adds a narrow free-disclosure right, not an annual free report: RCW 19.182.100(2) — a bureau "shall make all disclosures under RCW 19.182.070 and 19.182.080 and furnish all consumer reports under RCW 19.182.090 without charge, if requested by the consumer within sixty days after receipt by the consumer of a…

Ver la regla completa

notification of adverse action under RCW 19.182.110 or of a notification from a debt collection agency affiliated with that consumer reporting agency stating that the consumer's credit rating may be or has been adversely affected." Otherwise the state fee cap is "a fee not exceeding eight dollars" indexed to CPI from 1995 (RCW 19.182.100(1)(a)). No Washington overlay on the annual free report — federal 15 U.S.C. §1681j governs, and 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(4) preempts state law "with respect to the frequency of any disclosure under section 1681j(a)" (Washington is not among the seven states saved there). Reinvestigation notices are free under RCW 19.182.100(3).

Ley aplicable

Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act (state act; short title in RCW 19.182.900: "This chapter shall be known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act")

Honorarios de abogado

Mandatory for a prevailing consumer: RCW 19.182.150 awards "costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court" for any violation, and again with the $1,000 penalty for willful violations. Federal §1681n/§1681o already award fees; the state rule adds fee-shifting for the CPA claim.

Ver la regla completa

Small-claims plaintiffs typically appear without counsel, so this matters mainly in district or superior court. Available only in a CPA action by a person 'injured in his or her business or property' (RCW 19.86.090) — see statutory_damages.

Plazo para demandar

2 años

RCW 19.182.120: "An action to enforce a liability created under this chapter is permanently barred unless commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, except that where a defendant has materially and willfully misrepresented information required under this chapter to be disclosed to an individual and…

Ver la regla completa

the information so misrepresented is material to the establishment of the defendant's liability to that individual under this chapter, the action may be brought at any time within two years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation." SCOPE LIMIT in the same field: the two years run from ACCRUAL (not discovery) unless the willful-misrepresentation exception applies, and RCW 19.182.150 expressly makes this two-year period — not the Consumer Protection Act's own limitation period — govern CPA claims based on chapter 19.182 ("the applicable statute of limitation shall be as set forth in RCW 19.182.120"). This is SHORTER than federal 15 U.S.C. §1681p (2 years from discovery, outer limit 5 years from the violation). Treat the state claim as expiring two years after the violation.

Quién atiende quejas

Washington State Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division (RCW 19.182.010(2) defines "attorney general" as the enforcement office; RCW 19.182.080(7)(b)(iii) requires bureaus to list it).

Ver la regla completa

The AG runs an informal complaint-resolution service and states it cannot compel a business to make an adjustment.

Scope limits

(1) Medical-debt ban, RCW 19.182.040(1)(g): effective July 27, 2025 (2025 c 145); applies only to "medical debt" as defined in RCW 19.16.100(11) — debt "owed by a consumer to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, or to the person's agent or assignee", including bills "not…

Ver la regla completa

past due or that have been paid", but excluding cosmetic surgery (reconstructive surgery after trauma, infection or disease is NOT excluded); no dollar threshold; the $50,000 credit / $50,000 life-insurance / $20,000 salary carve-out in RCW 19.182.040(2) does NOT apply to (g) (subsection (2) lists only (1)(a)-(e) and (h)); federal preemption defense pending (see federal_preemption_analysis). (2) Obsolescence periods in RCW 19.182.040(1)(a)-(e),(h) do not apply to credit transactions of $50,000 or more, life insurance of $50,000 or more, or jobs paying $20,000 or more (RCW 19.182.040(2)). (3) The $1,000 penalty in RCW 19.182.150 requires "willful failure to comply"; non-willful violations yield actual damages and fees only. (4) Two-year limitation from accrual, RCW 19.182.120, extended to two years from discovery only for material and willful misrepresentation of required disclosures. (5) Free disclosure under RCW 19.182.100(2) only within 60 days of an adverse-action notice or an affiliated collection agency's notice. (6) Security freeze timing violations under RCW 19.182.170(6) carry no private CPA action — "enforced exclusively by the attorney general" (RCW 19.182.170(17)); freeze rules do not apply to the fourteen categories in RCW 19.182.170(14) (existing creditors and assignees reviewing or collecting an account, government agencies, court orders, child support, DSHS, IRS, prescreening, credit-monitoring subscriptions, the consumer's own copy, licensed mortgage brokers/loan originators). (7) Protected-consumer freezes (RCW 19.182.220-.230, effective January 1, 2017) apply only to individuals under 16 or incapacitated persons with an appointed guardian, and not to criminal-record, personal-loss, fraud-prevention, employment-screening or tenant-screening databases (RCW 19.182.230(11)(d)). (8) RCW 70.41.400 does not apply to HMO-owned hospitals serving their own enrollees (RCW 70.41.400(4)). (9) Small claims: $10,000 only for natural persons; $5,000 for all other plaintiffs (RCW 12.40.010).

Defeasible rules

(1) Reinvestigation duty is defeated by a bureau determination that the dispute is "frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure of the consumer to provide sufficient information" (RCW 19.182.090(3)(a)); the bureau must give written reasons within five business days.

Ver la regla completa

(2) The $1,000 penalty falls away without proof of willfulness (RCW 19.182.150). (3) Investigative-report disclosure violations are excused if the person "maintained reasonable procedures to assure compliance" (RCW 19.182.050(3)) — a bona-fide-procedures defense limited to that section; there is no general bona fide error defense in the chapter. (4) Identity-theft block can be declined or rescinded on a good-faith belief of misrepresentation, consumer agreement, or that the consumer knowingly obtained the goods (RCW 19.182.160(2)). (5) A freeze may be removed for "material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer" (RCW 19.182.170(9)(b)); the 15-minute electronic lift is excused by the force-majeure list in RCW 19.182.170(7). (6) Bureau not liable for releasing a frozen report to an impostor mortgage broker "through inadvertence or mistake" (RCW 19.182.170(15)). (7) Furnisher immunity: negligence/defamation/privacy claims for "unintentional error" are barred except as provided in RCW 19.182.150 (RCW 19.182.080(6)). (8) All medical-debt provisions are defeasible by the federal preemption defense under 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1)(E) (bureau) and (b)(1)(F) (furnisher); the CFPB's October 28, 2025 interpretive rule and two Texas federal rulings support the defense, the First Circuit's Frey decision cuts the other way, and no Ninth Circuit or Washington ruling exists. (9) The state claim is time-barred two years after accrual (RCW 19.182.120).

Enforcement agency

Washington State Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division. Consumer complaints are filed through the Attorney General's complaint page at https://www.atg.wa.gov/file-complaint.

Ver la regla completa

That office describes what it provides as an "informal complaint resolution service," and states plainly that "If a business refuses to respond or to make an adjustment, we cannot compel them to do so." The enforcement hook for this subject is RCW 19.182.150, which provides that a violation of chapter 19.182 RCW "is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW" — the provision that brings this chapter within the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Act authority. One category is carved out and handed to the Attorney General alone: under RCW 19.182.170(17), a violation of the temporary-lift timing rule in RCW 19.182.170(6) "does not provide a private cause of action under RCW 19.86.090" and "shall be enforced exclusively by the attorney general." The same subsection adds that such a violation "is subject to all other remedies and penalties available under this chapter," and the text does not say how those two sentences fit together. Complaints about federal credit-reporting rights go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; the federal baseline is outside the scope of this page.

Medical debt rules

Washington bans medical debt from consumer reports outright, with no dollar threshold, but the ban is contested under federal preemption. Bureau side: RCW 19.182.040(1)(g) — "no consumer reporting agency may make a consumer report containing ... (g) Medical debt, as defined in RCW 19.16.100".

Ver la regla completa

Furnisher side: RCW 70.41.400(2)(a) (hospitals, physician groups, professional partners "may not furnish information relating to a medical debt ... to a consumer credit reporting agency"), RCW 19.16.250(28)(a)(iii) (licensed collection agencies may not "Report adverse information to consumer credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus" on a medical-debt claim), and RCW 70.54.475(1) ("A medical debt is void and unenforceable if a person, health care provider, health care facility, or licensed collection agency violates this section by furnishing information regarding the medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency"); each is declared a CPA violation. Definition, RCW 19.16.100(11): "any debt owed by a consumer to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, or to the person's agent or assignee, for the provision of medical services, products, or devices. Medical debt includes, but is not limited to, medical bills that are not past due or that have been paid", excluding cosmetic surgery (but not reconstructive surgery after trauma, infection or disease). Effective July 27, 2025 (2025 c 145, ESSB 5480; official bill summary: "Effective date 7/27/2025"). LIMITS in the same field: (a) preemption — the bureau-side ban was not in effect on September 30, 1996 and so is outside the §1681t(b)(1)(E) grandfather; the CFPB's October 28, 2025 interpretive rule (90 FR 48710) says such bans are preempted; a Texas federal court held Texas's parallel ban preempted on August 10, 2026 (CDIA v. Paxton, per secondary reports); the First Circuit's 2022 Frey decision supports the opposite reading; the Ninth Circuit and Washington courts have not ruled; (b) the furnisher-side bans are outside the two state provisions saved by §1681t(b)(1)(F); (c) the "void and unenforceable" consequence in RCW 70.54.475 and 70.41.400(2)(a) is triggered only by a furnishing violation of those sections, not by a bureau's reporting; (d) RCW 70.41.400 excludes HMO-owned hospitals serving their own enrollees. Safest letter use: demand deletion under federal §1681i (inaccurate/unverifiable) as the primary ground and state that Washington law, RCW 19.182.040(1)(g), independently prohibits reporting the item — without promising that the state ban will be enforced by a court.

Relationship to fcra

Chapter 19.182 RCW is a 1993 state analogue of the FCRA covering consumer reporting agencies, users, and employers, effective January 1, 1994.

Ver la regla completa

Its accuracy and dispute rules track or fall short of the federal ones (30 business days vs 30 calendar days; 30-business-day reinsertion notice vs 5), it imposes no furnisher duties, and it carries a shorter, accrual-based two-year limitations period. What it adds is a state-law cause of action with mandatory attorney fees and a $1,000 penalty for willful violations, framed as a Consumer Protection Act violation enforceable by the Attorney General, plus (since July 27, 2025) a medical-debt content ban whose survival under federal preemption is actively contested.

Security freeze rules

Placing a freeze. Under RCW 19.182.170 (as amended by 2018 c 54), a consumer who is a resident of Washington may elect to place a security freeze on his or her credit report by making a request to a consumer reporting agency.

Ver la regla completa

While a freeze is in place, information from the consumer's credit report may not be released to a third party without the consumer's prior express authorization, though the agency may still advise a third party that a freeze is in effect.

The section's clocks. Placement: "no later than five business days after receiving a request from the consumer" (subsection (3)). Confirmation and credentials: a confirmation of the security freeze within ten business days, together with a unique personal identification number or password for the consumer to use when authorizing release of the report (subsection (4)). Temporary lift: "Three business days of receiving the request by mail" (subsection (6)(a)), or "Fifteen minutes" of receiving the request "through the electronic contact method chosen by the consumer reporting agency in accordance with subsection (8)" (subsection (6)(b)). The fifteen-minute figure is doubly conditional — it applies only if the request is received during normal business hours, defined in subsection (2)(c) as Sunday through Saturday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. Pacific time, and only if the request includes the consumer's proper identification and correct personal identification number or password. Whether an electronic channel exists at all is the agency's choice, not a requirement: subsection (8) says an agency "may develop procedures" involving telephone, fax, the internet or other electronic media. Subsection (7) then excuses the fifteen-minute deadline — and only that deadline, not the three-business-day mail deadline — where the consumer fails to meet the subsection (5) requirements, or where the agency's ability to lift within fifteen minutes is prevented by an act of God, by unauthorized or illegal acts of a third party, by an interruption in operations, by governmental action, by regularly scheduled maintenance or updates outside normal business hours, by unexpected or unscheduled but commercially reasonable maintenance or repair, or by receipt of a removal request outside normal business hours. Permanent removal: a freeze remains in place until the consumer asks that it be removed, and the agency must remove it within three business days of receiving the request — but subsection (12) conditions that clock on the consumer providing both proper identification as defined in subsection (5)(a) and the unique personal identification number or password issued under subsection (4). Fees: an agency may not charge for any service under the section, including placement, assigning the identification number or password, a temporary lift, or removal (subsection (13)).

Protected consumers. For an individual who is under sixteen years old at the time of the request, or who is incapacitated and for whom a guardian or limited guardian has been appointed (RCW 19.182.220(3)), a different clock applies: placement within thirty days of a request meeting the statutory requirements, removal within thirty days of a conforming removal request, and no fee for any service under the section (RCW 19.182.230(3), (7) and (8), effective January 1, 2017).

What a freeze does not stop. RCW 19.182.170(14) lists ten categories of use the section does not apply to. The first is the widest: a person or entity with which the consumer has or had an account or contract — together with that person's subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, assignees and prospective assignees of the consumer's financial obligation — using the report to review the account or collect the obligation owing on it, where "reviewing the account" expressly includes account maintenance, monitoring, credit line increases and account upgrades. Collection-related pulls therefore continue notwithstanding a freeze. The remaining categories cover governmental entities and their agents, persons acting under a court order, warrant or subpoena, child support agencies under Title IV-D, the department of social and health services, the internal revenue service, prescreening under the federal fair credit reporting act, credit file monitoring services the consumer has subscribed to, a person supplying the consumer with a copy of his or her own report, and licensed mortgage brokers and loan originators. Separately, resellers without a permanent database (RCW 19.182.190) and the check-services and deposit-account information companies described in RCW 19.182.200 are not required to place freezes at all.

Remedies, and what the text leaves unresolved. RCW 19.182.170(17) is three sentences: a violation of subsection (6) "does not provide a private cause of action under RCW 19.86.090"; a violation of subsection (6) "shall be enforced exclusively by the attorney general"; and a violation of subsection (6) "is subject to all other remedies and penalties available under this chapter." How the second and third sentences fit together is not settled by the text. The chapter's other penalty provisions are the criminal fines and jail terms in RCW 19.182.130 (obtaining information under false pretenses) and RCW 19.182.140 (an agency officer or employee providing information to an unauthorized person), neither of which is aimed at a late temporary lift, and the monetary penalty of one thousand dollars that RCW 19.182.150 attaches to a willful failure to comply with any requirement imposed under the chapter — a penalty that section frames as part of a judgment in a consumer's action under chapter 19.86 RCW, which is the route the first sentence of subsection (17) closes for a subsection (6) violation. Which remedies the third sentence preserves is therefore left open on the text. Subsection (17) names only subsection (6); the section does not say what follows from a late placement under subsection (3) or a late removal under subsection (12). Reading a consumer's private action into that silence is an inference from RCW 19.182.150 rather than something either section states, and this page does not state that such an action would succeed. RCW 19.182.230(10) provides that a violation of the protected-consumer section "is enforced in accordance with RCW 19.182.170 (17)," and the text does not say how far that carries. The text of RCW 19.86.090 itself is not among the sources behind this page.

Federal law. The federal security-freeze provisions are outside chapter 19.182 and were not among the texts checked for this page. This page therefore states no federal freeze deadline and takes no position on whether federal law displaces Washington's freeze placement, temporary-lift or removal timelines.

Who is liable scope limit

Who chapter 19.182 RCW reaches. RCW 19.182.150 makes a violation of the chapter an unfair or deceptive act for purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW.

Ver la regla completa

The chapter's duties run against consumer reporting agencies (accuracy, disclosure, reinvestigation and security-freeze duties); against a person who takes an adverse action with respect to a consumer based in whole or in part on information in a consumer report (RCW 19.182.110); against a person who procures a consumer report, or causes one to be procured, for employment purposes (RCW 19.182.020(2)); and against a person who procures or causes to be prepared an investigative consumer report (RCW 19.182.050(1) and (2)). That last duty is not absolute: RCW 19.182.050(3) provides that no person may be held liable for a violation of subsection (1) or (2) if the person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the violation the person "maintained reasonable procedures to assure compliance" with them.

Furnishers — the creditors, collectors and others who report information to a bureau — sit largely, but not entirely, outside the chapter, and the statute does not settle how far. RCW 19.182.080(6) provides that, except as provided in RCW 19.182.150, "no consumer may bring an action or proceeding against a person who provides information to a consumer reporting agency in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence for unintentional error." Chapter 19.182 contains no section imposing on a furnisher an independent duty to reinvestigate a disputed item; that is an absence in the chapter rather than an express exemption, and the federal furnisher-duty provision, 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2, is not part of the text behind this page. At the same time the chapter does hang consequences on furnisher conduct. RCW 19.182.090(2) requires the bureau to notify any person who provided a disputed item before the end of five business days from receiving the consumer's notice. And RCW 19.182.090(5)(b)(i) provides that information deleted "under (a) of this subsection" — that is, deleted because a reinvestigation found it inaccurate or unverifiable, not information dropped for some other reason such as age — "may not be reinserted in the file after the deletion unless the person who furnishes the information verifies that the information is complete and accurate." That reinsertion bar is written as a restriction on the bureau. Whether it also gives a consumer anything enforceable against the furnisher, and where the line falls between an "unintentional error" covered by RCW 19.182.080(6) and a claim that survives through the RCW 19.182.150 route into chapter 19.86 RCW, are not answered anywhere in the chapter's text, and this page does not state an answer.

Limits on who can sue and on what counts as a report. "Consumer" means an individual (RCW 19.182.010(3)), so an entity has no claim of its own; and a report furnished for use in connection with a transaction consisting of an extension of credit to be used for a commercial purpose is not a "consumer report" at all (RCW 19.182.010(4)(b)(vi)). On what a judgment carries, RCW 19.182.150 states that for a judgment awarded in a consumer's action under chapter 19.86 RCW the consumer is awarded actual damages and costs together with reasonable attorney's fees, and that where there has been a willful failure to comply the consumer is also awarded a monetary penalty of one thousand dollars. What a consumer must show to bring that chapter 19.86 action in the first place is governed by RCW 19.86.090, whose text is not among the sources behind this page; this page therefore does not state what injury the Consumer Protection Act requires, or whether distress-only harm suffices.

Security-freeze duties have their own carve-outs. Under RCW 19.182.190 a consumer reporting agency is not required to place a security freeze if it acts only as a reseller assembling and merging information held in other agencies' databases and maintains no permanent database of its own from which new reports are produced — but the same section goes on to provide that "a consumer reporting agency must honor any security freeze placed on a consumer credit report by another consumer reporting agency." RCW 19.182.200 likewise relieves a check services or fraud prevention services company, and a deposit account information service company, of the duty to place a freeze; it does not otherwise exempt them from the chapter.

Washington's medical-debt provisions — RCW 70.41.400(2), RCW 19.16.250(28)(a)(iii) and RCW 70.54.475, reaching respectively hospitals, physician groups and their professional partners; licensed collection agencies; and any person, health care provider, health care facility or licensed collection agency — sit outside chapter 19.182. Their text is outside the sources behind this page, which reach chapter 19.182 RCW and 15 U.S.C. §1681i, so this page states no conclusion about how those sections operate and none about whether federal law displaces them.

Federal preemption analysis

Analysis of 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b) (uscode.house.gov, text in effect September 4, 2026) against each Washington provision. (1) Dispute timing, RCW 19.182.090: §1681t(b)(1)(B) preempts state law on "the time by which a consumer reporting agency must take any action ...

Ver la regla completa

in any procedure related to the disputed accuracy of information in a consumer's file, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to any State law in effect on September 30, 1996." RCW 19.182.090 took effect January 1, 1994 (RCW 19.182.902) and its dispute subsections carry only the 1993 c 476 s 11 history, so it is grandfathered and a bureau has NO real preemption argument against it — but since its 30-business-day deadline is looser than federal, the safest letter use is to cite the federal deadline and mention the state duty to reinvestigate "without charge" only as corroboration. (2) Content/obsolescence rules, RCW 19.182.040: §1681t(b)(1)(E) preempts state law on the subject matter of §1681c "relating to information contained in consumer reports, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to any State law in effect on September 30, 1996." The 1993 seven-year/ten-year items in RCW 19.182.040(1)(a)-(e),(h) are grandfathered; the MEDICAL-DEBT BAN in RCW 19.182.040(1)(g) was added by 2025 c 145 (effective July 27, 2025) and was NOT in effect in 1996, so a bureau has a REAL preemption argument. That argument is currently winning: the CFPB's interpretive rule of October 28, 2025 (90 FR 48710) states that "The presence of information on a credit report is clearly a subject matter regulated under section 1681c" and that a state prohibition on medical debt appearing on a report is preempted; the U.S. District Court (E.D. Tex.) in Cornerstone Credit Union League v. CFPB (July 11, 2025) said in dicta that "any state law purporting to prohibit a CRA from furnishing a credit report with coded medical information would be inconsistent with FCRA and therefore preempted"; and on August 10, 2026 a federal district judge in Texas (Judge Pitman) in CDIA v. Paxton declared Texas's medical-debt reporting ban preempted on summary judgment (reported by CDIA and secondary sources; court record not retrieved). The contrary authority is the First Circuit's CDIA v. Frey (Feb. 10, 2022), which read §1681t(b)(1)(E) narrowly and did not find Maine's medical-debt amendment preempted on its face; Washington is in the Ninth Circuit, which has not ruled, and no court has ruled on RCW 19.182.040(1)(g) itself. Safest letter use: cite the state medical-debt ban as Washington law the consumer is invoking, alongside the federal §1681i accuracy/verification duty as the primary demand, and never as a settled right. (3) Furnisher duties: §1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state law on the subject matter of §1681s-2 except Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 §54A(a) and Cal. Civ. Code §1785.25(a). Chapter 19.182 imposes no furnisher duties, so nothing is lost there; the medical-debt furnishing bans in RCW 70.41.400(2)(a), 19.16.250(28)(a)(iii) and 70.54.475 are post-1996, not saved, and face a REAL preemption defense — use only as a stated position, not a guaranteed remedy. (4) Security freezes: §1681t(b)(1)(J) preempts state law on the subject matter of §1681c-1(i) and (j) (added 2018); RCW 19.182.170-.230's timing and fee rules are therefore displaced to the extent they regulate the same subject, and the federal rules (1 business day to place, 1 hour to lift electronically, free) are stricter anyway — cite federal. (5) Identity-theft block, RCW 19.182.160 (30 days): §1681t(b)(5)(C) preempts state law "with respect to the conduct required by" §1681c-2, whose four-business-day block is also stricter — cite federal. (6) Adverse-action notice, RCW 19.182.110: §1681t(b)(1)(C) preempts state law on the subject matter of §1681m(a) and (b) with no grandfather — do not rely on the state section. (7) Free-report frequency: §1681t(b)(4) preempts and Washington is not a saved state. (8) Remedies, RCW 19.182.150 and .120: nothing in §1681t(b) addresses state damages or limitations provisions attached to non-preempted state duties; a bureau's exposure to the state CPA remedy for a grandfathered accuracy/dispute violation is not preempted, but the remedy is only as strong as the underlying duty.

Lee esto antes de confiar en los datos de arriba

Washington text on this page is quoted from chapter 19.182 RCW as published by the Washington State Legislature. Federal text is quoted from 15 U.S.C. §1681i as published in the U.S. Code prelim edition, covering laws in effect on September 4, 2026. This page was checked against those two texts on September 6, 2026.

Several points below are not settled by that text, and they are stated on this page as open questions rather than as facts.

Neither RCW 19.182.090 nor 15 U.S.C. §1681i says how Washington's thirty-business-day reinvestigation period and the federal 30-day period interact, or whether the state period survives alongside the federal one. The federal preemption provisions are not part of either section, so the page does not state which period displaces the other.

The federal security-freeze provisions are likewise outside chapter 19.182. The state text does not settle whether Washington's freeze placement, temporary-lift and removal timelines are displaced by federal law, and this page therefore states no federal freeze deadline.

Whether the state termination standard in RCW 19.182.090(3)(a), under which the agency "determines" a dispute frivolous or irrelevant, matches the federal standard in 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(3)(A), under which the agency "reasonably determines" it, is not resolved by either text.

Chapter 19.182 contains no provision imposing an independent reinvestigation duty on furnishers. That is an absence in the chapter rather than an express exemption, and the federal furnisher-duty section is not part of the text behind this page. Whether RCW 19.182.090(5)(b)(i) gives a consumer anything enforceable against a furnisher, and where the line falls between an "unintentional error" covered by RCW 19.182.080(6) and a claim that survives through RCW 19.182.150, are not answered in the chapter.

RCW 19.182.170(17) names only subsection (6). That a consumer may sue over a late freeze placement under RCW 19.182.170(3) or a late removal under RCW 19.182.170(12) is an inference from that silence, not something the section states. How the same subsection's exclusive-enforcement sentence and its preservation of "all other remedies and penalties available under this chapter" fit together is also unresolved on the text.

The text of chapter 19.86 RCW, and the medical-debt sections outside chapter 19.182 (RCW 70.41.400, RCW 19.16.250 and RCW 70.54.475), were not among the texts checked for this version. Statements on this page that depend on them are carried forward from the earlier version and have not been confirmed against those sources.

Léelo tú mismo

Fuentes oficiales. Si algún dato de abajo importa en tu caso, abre la ley y léela — las leyes se reforman y muchas ciudades agregan reglas locales más estrictas.

Última verificación: 2026-09-07

Envía esto como carta certificada

Jab redacta la carta, un abogado con licencia la revisa, y la enviamos por correo certificado USPS con acuse de recibo firmado. $29 fijo. También puedes escribirla tú — esta página tiene lo necesario.

Empezar mi carta →

Jab Today no es un bufete y esto no es asesoría legal. Esta página describe cómo está redactada la ley, que es distinto de lo que pasará en tu caso. Las leyes se reforman y las ordenanzas locales suelen ser más estrictas. Para tu situación, consulta a un abogado con licencia en tu estado.