Washington Court Expands CEMA to Cover Recruitment Text Messages
Executive Summary
The Washington Court of Appeals has significantly expanded the scope of the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) in a decision issued on September 15, 2025 (for PDF version, click here), which will impact how businesses communicate with potential workers and contractors. In Aaland v. CRST Home Solutions, LLC, the court ruled that recruitment text messages sent to independent contractors constitute “commercial” communications under CEMA, even when no goods or services are directly offered for sale, thereby broadening the definition of a commercial text message.
Case Background
CRST Home Solutions, a logistics company specializing in delivery and installation services, conducted a recruitment campaign targeting potential independent contractors in the state of Washington. The company sent unsolicited text messages to licensed professionals, including plaintiff Michael Aaland, seeking to expand their contractor network.
The specific message that triggered the lawsuit read:
“Hi, I’m looking for a licensed plumber that may be interested in doing residential dishwasher installations for retailers like [retailer names] 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”
Aaland filed a class action lawsuit alleging that these recruitment messages violated CEMA and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, arguing that CRST sent commercial text messages without proper consent.
Legal Framework and Statutory Interpretation
CEMA prohibits businesses from initiating or assisting in the transmission of commercial electronic text messages to Washington residents without consent. The central legal question was whether recruitment messages qualify as “commercial electronic text messages” under the statute.
CEMA defines a commercial electronic text message as one “sent to promote real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” The court’s analysis focused on interpreting the word “promote” within this definition.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, adopting a broad interpretation of what constitutes promotion under CEMA. The court determined that “promote” encompasses any communication that contributes to a business’s growth or prosperity, regardless of whether specific goods or services are directly marketed.
In its analysis, the court examined CRST’s business model and recruitment strategy. The court found that CRST’s recruitment messages served a commercial purpose because:
- CRST relies on independent contractors to provide delivery and installation services sold to retail and manufacturing clients
- The company markets the size and geographic reach of its contractor network as a competitive advantage
- CRST evaluates recruiter performance based on the number of contractors successfully onboarded
- The recruitment directly contributes to CRST’s commercial success and growth
The court concluded that because CRST sent messages specifically to recruit contractors who would contribute to the company’s continued commercial success, these communications fell within CEMA’s definition of commercial electronic text messages.
The following chart summarizes the central legal disputes and the court’s resolution of each issue:
| Legal Issue | Plaintiff’s Position | CRST’s Defense | Court’s Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of “Commercial” Messages Under CEMA | Recruitment texts qualify as commercial communications because they advance CRST’s business interests, regardless of direct sales to recipients | Messages were purely recruitment-focused, not selling goods or services to recipients; no commercial transaction involved | Court agreed with plaintiff: Recruitment messages that contribute to business growth constitute commercial communications under CEMA’s broad statutory language |
| Interpretation of “Promote” in Statutory Definition | “Promote” should be interpreted broadly to include any communication that contributes to business development, growth, or competitive advantage | “Promote” should be limited to direct marketing of goods/services for sale; recruitment doesn’t “promote” services in the traditional commercial sense | Court adopted broad interpretation: “Promote” encompasses any communication that contributes to business growth or prosperity, not just direct sales activities |
| Requirement for Transactional Element | No direct transactional relationship required between sender and recipient for message to be considered commercial | Commercial messages should require some element of direct commercial exchange or offer to the recipient | Court rejected transactional requirement: CEMA’s plain language contains no limitation requiring direct commercial offers to message recipients |
Implications for Business Communications
This decision represents a significant expansion of CEMA’s reach beyond traditional marketing and sales communications. The court’s interpretation suggests that virtually any business communication that could contribute to company growth or prosperity may be subject to CEMA’s restrictions.
Types of Communications Now Potentially Covered:
- Recruitment and hiring outreach
- Vendor and supplier solicitation
- Partnership development messages
- Business networking communications
- Customer service follow-ups that could generate future business
Compliance Recommendations
Given this broader interpretation of commercial communications, businesses operating in Washington should implement comprehensive compliance measures:
Consent Protocols: Obtain express written consent before sending any text messages to Washington residents that could be construed as contributing to business growth or prosperity. This includes recruitment messages, partnership outreach, and vendor solicitation.
Communication Review: Audit existing text messaging practices to identify communications that may now fall under CEMA’s expanded scope. Even messages that don’t directly sell products or services could be subject to the statute if they contribute to business development.
Training and Policies: Develop clear policies for employee communications and provide training on CEMA compliance to ensure adherence. Ensure that recruiters, business development staff, and other personnel understand the new legal landscape.
Documentation: Maintain detailed records of consent for all text communications to Washington residents. Implement systems to track and verify consent before sending any business-related messages.
Financial Risk Assessment
CEMA violations carry significant financial penalties. The statute provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation without requiring proof of actual harm. In a class action context, these damages can accumulate rapidly, potentially resulting in substantial liability exposure for companies with broad recruitment or business development activities.
The Aaland decision also establishes precedent for attorney fee awards in successful CEMA cases, adding another layer of financial risk for non-compliant businesses.
Strategic Considerations
Companies should consider whether their current communication strategies justify the legal risks associated with unsolicited text messaging in Washington. For many businesses, transitioning to consent-based communication models or alternative recruitment methods may be more cost-effective than facing potential CEMA litigation.
Businesses heavily reliant on text-based recruitment or business development may need to fundamentally restructure their Washington operations or implement robust consent-gathering mechanisms before initiating any text communications.
Looking Forward
The Aaland v. CRST decision reflects a broader trend toward stricter regulation of TCPA-type text marketing and related communications, including SB140 in Texas. As courts continue to interpret consumer protection statutes expansively, companies must adapt their communication practices to avoid inadvertent violations.
This case serves as a reminder that compliance strategies must evolve with judicial interpretations of existing laws. What may have been permissible business communication yesterday could constitute a statutory violation today.
Conclusion
The Washington Court of Appeals’ decision in Aaland v. CRST fundamentally alters the landscape for business text communications in Washington state. By expanding CEMA’s definition of commercial messages to include recruitment and other business development communications, the court has created new compliance obligations for companies operating in the state.
Businesses must now carefully evaluate whether any text communication to Washington residents could be construed as contributing to business growth or prosperity. The safest approach is to obtain express consent before sending any business-related text messages, regardless of their specific content or purpose.
Companies that fail to adapt to this new legal reality face significant financial exposure through CEMA’s statutory damages provisions and potential class action litigation. Proactive compliance measures and strategic communication planning are essential for businesses seeking to avoid costly legal challenges while maintaining effective operations in Washington state.
