The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a false “sale” price alone does not constitute “business or property” injury under the state’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) if the item is worth what the consumer paid.
Key takeaway: The decision likely narrows some Washington false-discount cases, but it is not a green light for careless pricing. Businesses still face risk if the product is different from what was advertised, worth less than represented, or other facts show a real economic loss.
What happened
On April 2, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit in Montes v. SPARC Group LLC. The question was whether a shopper suffers an injury to “business or property” under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act when she buys and keeps the exact product she wanted at the advertised price, but the seller allegedly lied about the product’s price history. The court’s answer was no, “without more.”
The shopper in Montes bought leggings for $6.00 after seeing a struck-through $12.50 reference price. The court said her allegations showed disappointed expectations, but not a legally recognized economic injury, because she received and kept the leggings she wanted at the price she agreed to pay.
The opinion also explained that Washington’s Consumer Protection Act requires an injury to “business or property,” and the court treated that as an economic-loss requirement. In other words, feeling misled is not enough by itself; the plaintiff must show a real loss tied to money or property.
Why it matters
False-discount cases have become common because many retailers use compare-at prices, strike-through pricing, and percentage-off claims to market products. Montes is important because it tells businesses and consumers that, in Washington, a simple bargain-inducement theory may not be enough when the buyer received and kept the same fungible product at the agreed price.
That said, the decision is narrower than a full defense to all pricing claims. The court specifically noted that a consumer could still allege economic loss if the product received was objectively different from what was advertised or was worth less than represented. That leaves room for other Washington Consumer Protection Act theories based on actual overpayment, misdescribed goods, or other measurable harm.
For a business audience, the practical lesson is straightforward: the safest pricing claim is still an accurate one. Montes may reduce some litigation theories, but it also gives plaintiffs a roadmap for how to plead around a weak case by focusing on objective value and documented loss.
What businesses should do now
- Review compare-at, was-now, and percentage-off claims to make sure pricing history is documented and supportable.
- Keep records showing when a higher reference price was actually offered, for how long, and on what channel.
- Check vendor feeds, marketplace listings, and promotional automation tools so stale reference prices do not remain live after a campaign ends.
- Train marketing and e-commerce teams to distinguish between strong promotional language and statements that imply an objective pricing history.
Sources cited
1. Montes v. SPARC Group LLC, No. 104162-4, slip op. (Wash. Apr. 2, 2026), official opinion. https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1041624.pdf
This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
If you have questions about compliancee for businesses, you can reach us at https://martinkreshon.com or call (206) 929-0609. You can also find reviews for Martin on Google and Avvo.