Get ready to see a lot more CEMA claims after a court of appeals ruling just blew the doors off of the definition of “electronic commercial text message” in the state.

The #biglaw losses continue to pile up in TCPAWorld, whether it be under the TCPA or the CEMA.

Just reported on the massive Block, Inc. CEMA settlement from last week–$12.5MM!– brought to you by #biglaw.

Today we have the same statute– Washington state’s Mini-TCPA CEMA–and an absolutely STUNNING ruling coming out of the court of appeals up in Washington.

The case is Aaland v. CRST, 2025 WL 2641255 (Wash App. Sept. 15, 2025) and it holds virtually ALL commercial text messages are covered by the CEMA.

At issue in the case was a message reading as follows:

Hi,

I’m looking for a licensed plumber that may be interested in doing residential dishwasher installations for retailers like Lowe’s and Best Buy in the Seattle area.

If you’d like more information, please respond with your email address (note: does not add you to any lists) or give me a call at this number.

Thank you!-Deidre, recruiter for CRST

This is plainly a recruitment message. No effort is made to promote CRST’s goods or services and no effort is made to sell anything.

Under CEMA: No person conducting business in the state may initiate or assist in the transmission of an electronic commercial text message to a telephone number assigned to a Washington resident for cellular telephone or pager service.

Also under CEMA an ECTM is defined as: “an electronic text message sent to promote real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.”

To promote property, goods or services for sale or lease.

The appellate court walks through a “plain language” analysis of the statute–which makes sense–until it gets to the punch line.

Per the opinion: “The plain language of subsection (3) only otherwise limits a text message sender’s promotion of real property, goods, or services by specifying that such property, goods, or services must be “for sale or lease.” Thus, under RCW 19.190.010(3), a text message promotes a business’ services where it aims to contribute to the growth or prosperity of said business.”

Huh?

Those two sentences simply do not fit together.

The statute requires the messages “promote” the “real property, goods, or services” but then the court jumps to a INSANELY BROAD statement that any message that “aims to contribute to the growth and prosperity of said business” is covered.

6-7, as the kids say.

This makes literally no sense.

Now it makes slightly more sense when you recognize the court earlier broadly defined “promote” to include “furthering” or “launching” something, but even that does not connect the dots.

At the end of the day the appellate court just took a definition that PLAINLY applies only to SMS messages designed to MARKET a product or service and applied it to ANY MESSAGE that “contributes to the growth or prosperity of a business.”

My goodness, what a loss.

To make matters worse CRST also has to pay attorneys fees to Plaintiff’s lawyers for the loss!!!

Insane.

A few lessons here:

1. Do not hire #biglaw;
2. Do not send text messages in Washington State without consent;
3. If you are already sending text messages in Washington State call Troutman Amin, LLP right now and we’ll look at what you’re up to and try to help you out; and
4. Remember CEMA applies very broadly so even if your company didn’t directly send the message but only helped facilitate the message you might get sued.

Eesh.