Washington’s new Solicited Real Property Act took effect on January 1, 2026. The purported goal of the Act is to apply existing consumer protection laws for the benefit of sellers who do not actively seek to sell their real property but enter into a binding sale agreement in response to an unsolicited offer. “Unsolicited offers” can be either property-specific or aimed at a wide range of potential sellers, and can include letters, postcards, doorknob hangers, door knocking, phone calls, texts, emails, websites, and more. Notably, the Act applies to all types of real estate, not just residential properties.
In an unsolicited offer, the offeror must include in the proposed sale agreement an express statement that the seller has the right to an appraisal of the real property at the buyer’s cost, and that seller may cancel the transaction without penalty within four business days after receipt of the appraisal. Or if the seller decides not to have the appraisal done, it can cancel the agreement without penalty within 10 business days after executing the agreement.
The Act will have practical consequences for active buyers in the Washington market, particularly developers. First, form agreements will need to be updated to include the necessary disclosures in the required 10-point boldface type with a place for seller to specifically acknowledge the disclosures in writing (i.e. with initials). The Act will increase both transaction costs and closing timelines, as buyers will need to build in the possibility of both having to pay for the seller’s appraisal and to wait for receipt of the appraisal and expiration of seller’s cancellation rights. And buyers working on fixed budgets to acquire multiple properties will have to wait out the uncertainty inherent in their offers, making it perhaps harder to move quickly to assemble a full project site.
The Act does not apply to a buyer or a seller represented by a licensed real estate broker. Notably, the Act focuses on the parties and not the transaction, which leaves unanswered what happens if one party has a broker and the other does not. If only the buyer has a broker, is it exempt from making the disclosures, but the seller still has appraisal and cancellation rights? Or conversely, if only the seller has a broker, is the buyer still obligated to make the disclosures even though the seller has no rights under the Act? It also seems to go against the purported consumer protection goals of the Act to possibly exempt transactions when the buyer has a broker but the seller does not.
Violation of the Act exposes the buyer to action under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Remedies may include treble damages and attorney fees, which further increases the risk and potential cost of unsolicited real estate transactions. The “damages” to be trebled would likely be measured as the difference between the purchase price and the value that would have been identified in an appraisal. So, for example, a claim arising from a sale following violation of the Act for $100,000 below market value could result in damages of $300,000 or more. Conversely, an offer made at or near market value, even in violation of the Act, would lead to little if any damages.
In late October 2025, the City of Seattle passed a similar ordinance specific to residential properties, with slightly different timelines and disclosure requirements. Additional features of the Seattle law include the ability of the City to impose fines and to create a publicly-available “wall of shame” for repeat offenders.
Like many new laws, we need the dust to settle on some of the uncertainties posed before understanding their full impact. In the meantime, developers and other parties out looking for off-market properties in particular should be aware of the requirements of the new laws and incorporate them into their business practices in Washington state.
