Washington
Washington Identity Theft Laws: Penalties and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 14, 2026). · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Washington's identity theft statute, RCW 9.35.020, does something unusual for a criminal law: it builds a private civil damages remedy directly into the statute itself, letting a victim recover $1,000 or their actual damages, whichever is greater, plus credit-repair costs and attorney's fees, without needing a separate civil-remedy law. This page covers the statute's two-tier penalty structure, that built-in civil remedy, Washington's victim-record-access rights, its fingerprint-based identity verification program, and the state's own minor freeze law.
This article addresses Washington state law, primarily RCW 9.35.020 and related sections of chapters 9.35, 19.182, and 19.255, plus the federal layer that applies in every state.
RCW 9.35.020: Washington's Identity Theft Statute
Under RCW 9.35.020, no person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information belonging to another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any crime. The statute splits into two degrees based on the harm and the victim.
First-degree identity theft applies when a violation of the base prohibition also involves obtaining credit, money, goods, services, or anything of value in excess of $1,500, or when it knowingly targets a senior or vulnerable individual, and it is a Class B felony. Second-degree identity theft is defined residually, as a violation of the base prohibition "under circumstances not amounting to identity theft in the first degree," and carries no separate dollar floor of its own; it is a Class C felony. A series of transactions against one victim that individually would each qualify as second-degree, if part of a common scheme or plan, can be aggregated into a single count, with the combined total determining the degree. Someone who commits identity theft alongside another crime can be punished for both, prosecuted separately. Upon conviction, the sentencing court may also order correction of public records that contain false information resulting from the offense.
The Built-In Civil Damages Remedy
One of the more victim-favorable features of Washington's law is that RCW 9.35.020 itself creates a private civil cause of action, rather than leaving victims to rely on general tort law. A person who violates the statute "is liable for civil damages of one thousand dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater, including costs to repair the victim's credit record and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court." This means a Washington identity theft victim does not need to prove actual damages exceeding $1,000 to recover something meaningful, since the statute guarantees at least that floor.
Washington's statute contains no restitution mandate of its own as part of criminal sentencing; the $1,000-or-actual-damages remedy described above is this civil cause of action, not a restitution order imposed at sentencing. Whether restitution is separately required through Washington's general sentencing statutes for felony offenses was not independently confirmed for this article.
Access to Business Records and the Consumer Protection Act
RCW 9.35.040 gives a victim a further right: any business, creditor, or merchant that dealt with the impostor must, on the victim's written request, provide copies of relevant application and transaction records. Unless the provider is otherwise willing to verify the victim's identification, the victim must supply all three of the proof documents the statute lists: a government-issued photo identification card, a copy of a filed police report evidencing the claim, and a written statement from the Washington State Patrol showing it has documentation of the victim's identity on file. The business may charge a reasonable fee to compile the records. Critically, a violation of this right is declared an unfair or deceptive act under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, and a business's willful failure to comply entitles the victim to actual damages, plus a $1,000 penalty, plus reasonable attorney's fees, giving this record-access right real enforcement teeth.

Washington's Fingerprint Identification Program
Washington does not offer a card-based "identity theft passport" the way some states do. Instead, RCW 43.43.760(2) lets a person claiming to be an identity theft victim have their fingerprints taken by any law enforcement agency and filed with the Washington State Patrol, specifically to secure easier and more certain identification in future identity theft cases. The State Patrol then provides a printed statement confirming the holder has claimed victim status, citing the RCW 9.35.040 business-record-access right described above. That statement is one of the three proof documents a victim must present to a business when requesting copies of fraudulent transaction records, unless the business is otherwise willing to verify the victim's identity.
Police Reports
Under RCW 9.35.050, a law enforcement agency must create a police incident report when a victim reports identity theft and must provide the complainant a copy. The statute is explicit, however, that it does not require the agency to actually investigate the reported theft, only to document it. No deadline is specified for creating the report.
Washington's Minor and Protected Consumer Freeze Law
Washington has maintained its own protected consumer security freeze law since it took effect in January 2017, more than a year ahead of the 2018 federal minor-freeze right. A "protected consumer" is anyone under 16 years old at the time of the request, or an incapacitated person with an appointed guardian or limited guardian. A representative acting for the protected consumer must submit identification and sufficient proof of authority to act on their behalf. The credit reporting agency must place the freeze within 30 days of a compliant request and may not charge a fee for any service performed under the statute. Removal likewise must occur within 30 days of an affirmative request; the statute does not describe an automatic removal trigger once the protected consumer reaches adulthood, so an affirmative request remains necessary.

Breach Notification
Washington's breach notification statute, RCW 19.255.010, requires notice to affected residents in the most expedient time possible, without unreasonable delay, and no more than 30 calendar days after a breach is discovered. The notice must include the reporting business's contact information, the categories of information exposed, the time frame of exposure if known, and the toll-free phone numbers and addresses of the major credit reporting agencies if personal information was exposed. The statute does not mandate free credit monitoring. If a single breach requires notifying more than 500 Washington residents, the Attorney General must also be notified within the same 30-day window.
Reporting Identity Theft in Washington
The Washington Attorney General's identity theft page advises contacting the three credit bureaus to place a fraud alert and pulling a new credit report monthly to check for fraudulent charges, and notes the federal $50 maximum consumer liability rule when unauthorized charges are reported promptly. The office is explicit that it is authorized to bring legal action only in the name of the State of Washington and cannot serve as an attorney for individual consumers; residents file complaints through the office's general online complaint form, by mail, or by calling 1-800-551-4636 in-state.
The Federal Layer
Every Washington identity theft victim can also draw on federal protections that apply regardless of state. The Fair Credit Reporting Act's section 605b lets a victim submit a police report or FTC Identity Theft Report to block fraudulent information from appearing on their credit file. IdentityTheft.gov, run by the Federal Trade Commission, remains the fastest way to generate the initial recovery plan most other steps build on.

Information last verified on 2026-08-13. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Related Resources
- Identity Theft Laws: Federal Rules and State Penalties
- How to Report Identity Theft
- Credit Freeze vs. Fraud Alert
Last updated: 2026-08-13.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the penalty for identity theft in Washington?
First-degree identity theft, involving more than $1,500 in value or a senior or vulnerable victim, is a Class B felony. Second-degree identity theft covers other circumstances and is a Class C felony, with no separate dollar threshold of its own.
Can a Washington identity theft victim sue the thief directly?
Yes. RCW 9.35.020 itself creates a civil cause of action for $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus credit-repair costs and reasonable attorney's fees, without needing a separate civil statute.
Does Washington have an identity theft passport card?
Not in that form. Washington's mechanism is a fingerprint-based identification statement issued by the Washington State Patrol under RCW 43.43.760(2), which a victim can present to businesses when requesting fraudulent transaction records.
Can a Washington identity theft victim get copies of the fraudulent transactions made in their name?
Yes. RCW 9.35.040 requires a business that dealt with the impostor to provide copies of relevant records on written request. Unless the business is otherwise willing to verify the victim's identification, the victim must supply a government-issued photo ID, a copy of a filed police report, and a Washington State Patrol identification statement. A business's willful refusal entitles the victim to actual damages, a $1,000 penalty, and attorney's fees under the Consumer Protection Act.
Does Washington have a credit freeze law for minors?
Yes, in effect since January 2017, covering anyone under 16 or an incapacitated person with a guardian, with no fee for the freeze service.
Where should a Washington resident report identity theft?
File a report at IdentityTheft.gov for a federal recovery plan, file a police incident report with local law enforcement, and file a complaint with the Washington Attorney General's office if you want the state to be aware of the fraud.
Updates
Corrected the record-access section to state that RCW 9.35.040 requires all three proof-of-identity documents unless the business is otherwise willing to verify the victim's identity, and corrected the attorney general breach-notice threshold to more than 500 Washington residents.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.35.020Identity theft.In force
(1) No person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime. (2) Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice violates subsection (1) of this section and obtains credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value, or when the accused knowingly targets a senior or vulnerable individual in carrying out a violation of subsection (1) of this section, shall constitute identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. (3) A person is guilty of identity theft in the second degree when he or she violates subsection (1) of this section under circumstances not amounting to identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the second degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. (4) Each crime prosecuted under this section shall be punished separately under chapter 9.94A RCW, unless it is the same criminal conduct as any other crime, under RCW 9.94A.589.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 107 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Evans (2013) held that a corporation can be an identity theft victim under RCW 9.35.020 and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Leyda (2006) held the unit of prosecution is one act of obtaining, possessing, using or transferring one victim's identification, so four uses of a stolen card supported one count.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Evans (Washington Supreme Court 2013, 177 Wash. 2d 186)✓Evans stole a business check from his employer, forged a signature and cashed it for $500; the Washington Supreme Court held RCW 9.35.020 reaches theft of a corporate identity and is not unconstitutionally vague, and affirmed his identity theft conviction.
- State v. Fedorov (Court of Appeals of Washington 2014, 181 Wash. App. 187)✓Stopped for speeding without a license, Fedorov identified himself as Zachary Anderson, a real person; the court held the evidence sufficient under RCW 9.35.020(1) that he used a specific, real person's identity intending to make a false statement to a public servant.
- State v. Leyda (Washington Supreme Court 2006, 157 Wash. 2d 335)✓Leyda had a woman's stolen credit card that he and his girlfriend used or tried to use four times; the Washington Supreme Court held the unit of prosecution under RCW 9.35.020 is one act of obtaining, possessing, using or transferring, so four counts violated double jeopardy.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.35.040Information available to victim.In force
(1) A person, financial information repository, financial service provider, merchant, corporation, trust, partnership, or unincorporated association possessing information relating to an actual or potential violation of this chapter, and who may have entered into a transaction, provided credit, products, goods, or services, accepted payment, or otherwise done business with a person who has used the victim's means of identification, must, upon written request of the victim, provide copies of all relevant application and transaction information related to the transaction being alleged as a potential or actual violation of this chapter. Nothing in this section requires the information provider to disclose information that it is otherwise prohibited from disclosing by law, except that a law that prohibits disclosing a person's information to third parties shall not be used to deny disclosure of such information to the victim under this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Evans (Washington Supreme Court 2013, 177 Wash. 2d 186)“…g of a government-issued photo identification card . . . .” RCW 9.35.040(2)(a). Victims must also provide a “wri…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.35.050Incident reports.In force
(1) A person who has learned or reasonably suspects that his or her financial information or means of identification has been unlawfully obtained, used by, or disclosed to another, as described in this chapter, may file an incident report with a law enforcement agency, by contacting the local law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction over his or her actual residence, place of business, or place where the crime occurred. The law enforcement agency shall create a police incident report of the matter and provide the complainant with a copy of that report, and may refer the incident report to another law enforcement agency. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a law enforcement agency to investigate reports claiming identity theft. An incident report filed under this section is not required to be counted as an open case for purposes of compiling open case statistics.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 43.43.760Personal identification—Requests—Purpose—Applicants—Fee.In force
(1) Whenever a resident of this state appears before any law enforcement agency and requests an impression of his or her fingerprints to be made, such agency may comply with his or her request and make the required copies of the impressions on forms marked "Personal Identification". The required copies shall be forwarded to the section and marked "for personal identification only". The section shall accept and file such fingerprints submitted voluntarily by such resident, for the purpose of securing a more certain and easy identification in case of death, injury, loss of memory, or other similar circumstances. Upon the request of such person, the section shall return his or her identification data.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Evans (Washington Supreme Court 2013, 177 Wash. 2d 186)“…tity pursuant to the personal identification procedures in RCW 43.43.760." RCW 9.35.040(2)(c). RCW 43.43.760(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.255.010Personal information—Notice of security breaches.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) Any person or business that conducts business in this state and that owns or licenses data that includes personal information shall disclose any breach of the security of the system to any resident of this state whose personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person and the personal information was not secured. Notice is not required if the breach of the security of the system is not reasonably likely to subject consumers to a risk of harm. The breach of secured personal information must be disclosed if the information acquired and accessed is not secured during a security breach or if the confidential process, encryption key, or other means to decipher the secured information was acquired by an unauthorized person. (2) Any person or business that maintains or possesses data that may include personal information that the person or business does not own or license shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the data immediately following discovery, if the personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing (2023) held RCW 19.255.010(2) reaches only a business that maintains data it does not own or license, and that a subsection (1) claim needs a Washington resident plaintiff. Krefting v. Kaye-Smith (2023) applied the 30-day notice window in subsection (8) without deciding whether it creates a tort duty.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sarah Nunley v. Chelan-Douglas Health District (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)✓After hackers took patient records from a health district, the court reversed dismissal of a negligence suit and cited the breach notification statute's notice duty and damages remedy as evidence of Washington policy supporting a common law duty to safeguard personal data.
- In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (District Court, S.D. California 2014, 996 F. Supp. 2d 942)“…sufficient. The court agrees. With respect to a claim under RCW 19.255.010, it is not enough for Mr. Grigsby to ha…”
- In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (District Court, D. Oregon 2016, 198 F. Supp. 3d 1183)“…(2) violation of the Washington Data Breach Disclosure Law, RCW § 19.255.010; 3 (3) negligence; 4 (4) breach of ex…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Security Camera Laws: Rules for Home and Business Surveillance (2026), Washington Data Breach Notification Laws: Reporting Rules & Timelines (2026), Data Breach Notification Deadlines by Country (2026 Comparison Table)
§ 19.182.220Security freeze—Protected consumers—Definitions.In force
The definitions in this section apply throughout this section and RCW 19.182.230 unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Credit report" means a consumer report, as defined in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681a, that is used or collected to serve as a factor in establishing a consumer's eligibility for credit for personal, family, or household purposes. (2) "Normal business hours" means Sunday through Saturday, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. Pacific time. (3) "Protected consumer" means an individual who is: (a) Under the age of sixteen years old at the time a request for the placement of a security freeze is made pursuant to RCW 19.182.230; or (b) Incapacitated and for whom a guardian or limited guardian has been appointed. (4) "Record" means a compilation of information that: (a) Identifies a protected consumer; (b) Is created by a consumer reporting agency solely for the purpose of complying with RCW 19.182.230; and (c) May not be created or used to consider the protected consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living for any purpose listed in RCW 19.182.020.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RCW 9.35.020, Identity Theft(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.35.040, Information Available to Victim(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.35.050, Incident Reports(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 43.43.760, Fingerprinting of Identity Theft Victims(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.182.220, Security Freeze, Protected Consumer Definitions(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.255.010, Breach of Security Systems Notification(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Washington Attorney General, Identity Theft(atg.wa.gov).gov
- IdentityTheft.gov (Federal Trade Commission)(identitytheft.gov).gov
- 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, Block of Information Resulting From Identity Theft (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)