WR is closely monitoring the bills that have advanced through the legislative process. Each week, we’ll spotlight our weekly “hot list” key legislation that could have the most significant impact on WR members.
Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) (SB 5976/HB 2274)
A proposed substitute bill was negotiated to keep the bill moving forward, with opponents of the bill shifting to a neutral position. The substitute lowers statutory damages from $500 to $100 and adds a knowledge standard tying liability to what a sender knew or reasonably should have known. However, it does not include retroactivity, an injury requirement, or a requirement linking subject-line language to the commercial nature of the email. While not addressing recent court precedent or underlying litigation drivers, the changes are expected to reduce exposure and slow escalation, with more comprehensive reform planned for the next session.
Separately, ESHB 2274 passed the House 86–11 (1 excused) with bipartisan floor support and no opposition testimony. Floor discussion emphasized that the underlying law was written in 1998 and is being applied to modern communications in ways creating significant business risk. The bill was characterized as a stabilization step rather than a final fix, with interim stakeholder work planned to pursue broader reform.
Position: WR supports this bill.
Status: The bill has moved to the Senate and must clear policy committee by February 25 and pass the chamber by March 12 to stay on track this session.
Employer Medicaid Reimbursement (SB 6173)
SB 6173 would require employers to reimburse the state for healthcare costs if their employees utilize Apple Health (Medicaid). Stakeholders are concerned this would create a significant new employer cost, effectively operating as a hidden tax on businesses, with estimated impacts approaching $1 billion across the employer community. A large coalition of employer and industry groups is actively coordinating opposition, with AWB leading engagement. A detailed memo outlining technical, legal, and implementation concerns has been submitted to the bill sponsor. Current advocacy efforts are focused on both policy concerns and emphasizing the substantial fiscal impact to employers, even as broader policy discussions continues.
Position: WR is opposed to this bill.
Status: The bill is currently awaiting a vote in the Senate Ways & Means Committee scheduled for February 19, 2026.
Immigration enforcement employer requirements & penalties (HB 2105)
This is modeled after California’s 2017 Immigrant Worker Protection Act, but the initial version would significantly expand compliance requirements and penalties well beyond California’s framework, including establishing a private right of action and imposing high fines multiplied by the number of Washington-based employees. The bill was executed out of House Appropriations on 2/7. WR and the broader business community testified in opposition, primarily due to concerns about the private right of action.
Position: WR is opposed to this bill.
Status: The bill has passed the House and is currently moving through committee in the Legislature as of mid‑February 2026.
Promoting transparency in workers’ comp rate setting and subsidization (HB 2188 / SB 6136)
This bill strengthens transparency in the workers’ compensation premium rate-setting process by requiring additional public reporting when the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) sets rates below actuarially indicated levels. While the Director retains the discretion to adopt rates lower than actuarial rates, the bill requires clear disclosure of both rates by each risk class to the Legislature, the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Committee, and the public.
For employers, HB 2188 does not change benefit levels or directly alter premium calculations. Instead, it enhances visibility into how rates are determined, including whether contingency reserves are being used to moderate increases and whether limiting increases in certain risk classes may shift costs indirectly to others.
Position: WR supports this bill.
Status: HB 2188: Advanced to House Rules for second reading; SB 6136: Set for public hearing in House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on Feb 25 at 8:00 AM.
Plastic Bag Ban (SB 5965)
Multiple proposals this session would revise carryout bag policies, ranging from expanded plastic bag bans and fee increases to proposals that would repeal fees and thickness requirements. WR supports data-driven flexibility and opposes measures that disproportionately impact low-income shoppers. Most recently, the Senate Environment Committee amended the plastic bag bill to ban plastic bags and set an 8¢ paper bag fee (reduced from earlier proposed higher amounts). The amendment created a negative fiscal impact, and the bill has now been referred to Ways & Means, where the key question will be whether lawmakers choose to fund the resulting revenue shortfall.
Position: WR is opposed to this bill.
Status: Feb 19: Scheduled for executive session in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 4:00 PM
DOR “technical” tax-administration cleanup bills (HB 2257 / SB 6113)
This bill raises significant concern because it could expand taxation on advertising, particularly if constitutional challenges to the digital advertising tax succeed. Earlier language included a provision that would have eliminated the entire section, including existing deductions and exemptions — if any portion of the law was struck down, potentially broadening an advertising sales tax to cover physical signage, in-store displays, point-of-sale materials, print inserts, and circulars in addition to digital advertising. Due to the potential broad retail impact and ongoing legal scrutiny around differential treatment of digital versus traditional advertising, this remains a high-priority issue. As of 2/6/2026, the tax administration cleanup bill was amended to remove the Section 26 “blow-up” provision that could have eliminated key deductions and exemptions (including retail signage), with support from House leadership. The Senate has now voted on SB 6113 and, consistent with the House’s action on HB 2257, removed the “blowup” amendment.
Position: WR has concerns with this bill.
Status: HB 2257 is in House Rules for second review after Finance Committee approval; SB 6113 has passed both chambers and awaits final enactment.
Decrease in Estate Tax Increase Under Consideration (HB 2736 / SB 6347)
The Senate is awaiting full floor action on legislation to pare back portions of last year’s estate‑tax increase (SB 6347) that reduces projected state revenues by $44.8M in FY 2027 and $191.1M in FY 2028, the first full year of impact. Meanwhile, the House will hear similar legislation (HB 2736) that goes further by fully restoring the pre-2025 estate tax rate structure beginning July 1, 2026.
Position: WR has concerns with this tax.
Status: HB 2736 was referred to the House Finance Committee on February 12 and is awaiting further action, while SB 6347 passed the Senate on February 16 by a 38 to 11 vote after adoption of floor amendments and third reading.
Bills not likely to advance
Textile EPR (HB 1420)
Textile Extended Producer Responsibility program modeled on California law. Not ready this session; potential future alignment with CA assessment model.
Position: WR opposed this bill.
ORC Sentence Enhancements (HB 2209)
This bill proposed adding extra felony sentencing time when the value of stolen/possessed/trafficked property was high. It would have applied to crimes including theft, possessing stolen property, second-degree robbery, theft with intent to resell, organized retail theft, retail theft with special circumstances.
Position: WR supported this bill.
Grocery Algorithmic Pricing (HB 2481)
This bill targeted “surveillance-based price discrimination” and “surge pricing” in retail/grocery settings, but as drafted remained overly broad and could have unintentionally restricted routine, consumer-friendly pricing practices such as sales/markdowns, flash discounts, coupons, loyalty offers, and targeted discounts for groups like seniors and veterans.
Position: WR opposed this bill.
Data Broker Registry (HB 2483)
WR opposed this bill because it severely restricts common employer monitoring tools—including cameras, keystroke tracking, and system or badge logins—while imposing vague notice requirements, statutory damages, and a private right of action.
Position: WR opposed this bill.
Ban certain rodenticide (HB 2516)
This proposal places a moratorium on rodenticides with anticoagulants and rodenticides containing bromethalin as an active ingredient before evaluating its impact on public health and working with relevant agencies such as the Department of Health and Agriculture. Alternatives have not been studied adequately to ensure effectiveness and cost equivalence. Prime sponsor Legislators indicated there will be continuous stakeholdering during the interim.
Position: WR opposed this bill.
Pathway to unionizing security guard by establishing an industry standard board (HB 2524)
This bill would have established an industry standards board for security guards. The board would set requirements for training, wages, benefits, and working conditions, create a private right of action (PRA), and be funded through workers’ compensation premium dollars. Due to concerns about increased costs, regulatory burden, and litigation exposure.
Position: WR had concerns with this bill.
Mattress EPR (SB 6271)
This bill replaces HB 1901 introduced in 2025 with an EPR framework with more agency oversight and fines for non-compliance. Producers will be responsible for all costs related to an EPR organization while some retailers would become categorized as producers and continue to prohibit retailers from collecting a point-of-sale recycling fee like those in other states. Legislators indicated there will be continuous stakeholdering during the interim.
Position: WR opposed this bill.
