Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Court Finds Temporary Section 122 Tariffs Unlawful

Chad Rutkowski Addresses ABA IPL Copyright and Tech Committee Meeting

US State Action Doctrine Narrowed by Federal Appeals Court: <em>Megatel Homes, LLC v. Cityof Mansfield, Texas (Concurrences)</em>

Alexander Reid Takes Part in Panel at 2026 Updates in Higher Education Taxation Live Webcast

For brands facing a surge of Washington state Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) litigation over email subject lines, there’s finally a bit of good news in the inbox.

core/paragraph

Washington’s governor has signed an amendment to CEMA that most notably reduces statutory damages from $500 per violation to $100. It also adds a knowledge requirement, tying liability to what a sender knew or reasonably should have known about the misleading nature of the subject line at the time the message was sent. Finally, the law applies to any cause of action filed following the law’s effective date (June 11, 2026), regardless of when the conduct occurred. 

The signed law is available <a href="https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2274-S.SL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

These changes are a direct response to the flood of lawsuits that followed the <a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/not-to-change-the-subject-line-but-email-marketers-may-want-to-take-note-of-a-recent-washington-supreme-court-ruling/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Washington Supreme Court’s decision</a> in <em>Brown v. Old Navy</em>, which dramatically expanded CEMA exposure based on allegedly misleading subject lines alone. The combination of per‑email damages and a near strict‑liability framework quickly turned routine promotional language into high‑stakes <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/blogs/this-update-wont-last-long-recent-litigation-targets-misleading-email-subject-lines/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">litigation risk</a>.

Importantly, the amendment reflects a more modest set of reforms than those originally on the table during the legislative process. While <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/blogs/a-turn-in-the-tide-washington-bills-aim-to-stem-the-recent-wave-of-cema-litigation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lawmakers considered broader fixes</a> aimed at more comprehensively curbing CEMA litigation, only targeted changes ultimately made it into the final bill. The result is a statute that is softened but far from defanged.

Whether this legislative tune‑up meaningfully slows CEMA filings – or simply reshapes how those claims are pled – remains to be seen. But it clearly reflects a legislative effort to recalibrate a statute that had drifted far from its original purpose, while attempting to preserve some accountability for genuinely misleading email practices.

Some Relief for the Re: Line – Washington’s CEMA Gets a Legislative Tune‑Up

Featured Insights

Related Services

Featured Insights