Washington Supreme Court Draws a Clear Line: No Injury When Consumers Get What They Paid For

In a significant win for the retail industry, the Washington Supreme Court ruled today in Montes v. SPARC Group LLC that a consumer who buys a product at its advertised price—and receives exactly what was advertised—does not suffer a cognizable injury under the state's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), even if the seller allegedly misrepresented the product's price history.

In this case, the plaintiff purchased leggings for $6.00 after seeing a struck-out "regular price" of $12.50. She received the leggings, kept them, and never alleged they were defective or worth less than what she paid. She sued nonetheless and advanced three theories of harm:

1. that she wouldn't have bought them but for the pricing,

2. that she didn't get the "bargain" she expected, and

3. that deceptive pricing inflated demand and thus the price.

The court rejected all three, holding that disappointed expectations and hypothetical alternate spending decisions are not the kind of objective economic loss the CPA requires.

The Retail Litigation Center, along with the National Retail Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Washington Retail Association, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant that was cited favorably by the court. The brief urged the court to hold the line on the CPA's injury requirement and highlighted the broad consensus among federal courts that mere inducement to purchase, without more, does not constitute injury to "business or property." The court expressly found these federal authorities "particularly persuasive.”

Why This Matters for Retailers 

This ruling provides critical clarity for retailers that use promotional pricing, reference pricing, and markdown strategies. Had the court accepted the plaintiff's theories, any consumer who purchased a product during a sale event could potentially claim CPA injury by alleging the reference price was overstated, even without returning the product, alleging a defect, or claiming the product was worth less than what they paid. That would have opened the door to sprawling class actions challenging routine pricing practices across the industry.

Retailers should take comfort in this decision, but it comes with a built-in limitation. The court made clear that its holding applies to cases involving fungible consumer goods where

the product delivered matches what was advertised in all material respects. Claims involving products that are objectively different from, defective compared to, or worth less than what was promised remain actionable.

The Retail Litigation Center will remain vigilant in its advocacy at the judiciary on reference pricing cases. If you have any questions about this case, please reach out to RLC Vice President of Litigation, Josh Moore.