A King County Superior Court judge says the state of Washington must pay attorney’s fees to Value Village months after the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General’s Office violated the thrift store chain’s First Amendment rights.

While Value Village submitted a total of nearly $5.7 million in receipts for attorney’s fees and costs, the state will be allowed to challenge any of the “discrete aspects” of the costs that are claimed before Aug. 30, when the response from the AG’s office is due. The Superior Court Judge will ultimately decide the exact amount that will be awarded.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the King County Superior Court to dismiss the claims brought by the state and to decide if Value Village was entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.

The 27-page ruling from Judge David Whedbee dismissed the State’s claims against Value Village with prejudice on Aug. 9.

ADVERTISEMENT Advertisement

“The State’s conduct during this case contributed to increased fees and costs,” Whedbee wrote before citing examples.

The situation began in 2017 when AG Bob Ferguson’s office alleged that Value Village was deceiving consumers by presenting itself as a charitable nonprofit organization when in reality it is a for-profit corporation.

However, Judge Whedbee said the AG’s office refused to meet with Value Village or identify which practices needed to be changed during an investigation prior to the state filing a lawsuit, inconsistent with the purpose of the Charitable Solicitations Act. Instead, the State “demanded” that Value Village make a multi-million dollar payment to the AG’s Office to settle the investigation, and when that didn’t happen, the AG’s Office sued the company.

Whedbee also noted that during litigation the AG’s Office continued to send out press releases that claimed Value Village was deceiving its customers.

Additionally, the AG’s Office was sanctioned $41,633 by a trial court in 2020 for its failure to respond in a timely way to discovery requests while also making discovery demands that required Value Village to produce more than 47,000 records.

During appellate proceedings, “the state continually requested reconsideration of rulings, despite unanimous opinions rejecting the state’s arguments and holding that the state’s actions violated established First Amendment principle.”

The state consistently denied applicability of the First Amendment or U.S. Supreme Court precedent for Value Village’s marketing practices and would not engage on the issue during litigation, Whedbee said.

“Whether or not the State might be entitled under court rules to engage in such aggressive litigation, or even acted in ‘good faith’ throughout, such litigation inevitably drives up costs for defendants such as (Value Village) that become the target of the AGO’ s enforcement actions,” Whedbee continued.

In 2019, Value Village agreed to settle without admitting liability for $475,000, but that offer was rejected by the AG’s Office, leading to an additional four-plus years of litigation in the case.

In February, Supreme Court Justices wrote that Value Village markets itself as a philanthropic organization but that its charity partners do not receive any sales revenue nor do those partners receive donations from the company.

The Justices determined that the “State’s claims under the Consumer Protection Act violated (Value Village’s) First Amendment right to engage in constitutionally protected charitable solicitation for the community charities with which (Value Village) worked for decades,” Whedbee wrote.

The AG’s Office “failed to show that any (Value Village) shopper had in fact been deceived or otherwise injured by (Value Village’s) advertising and marketing” Whedbee said.

The AG’s Office opposed the awarding of any attorney’s fees to Value Village, the filing read, because it argued that it might deter them from enforcement action. The State also opposed the fees because they argue that they acted in “good faith” during litigation.

Whedbee noted that Ferguson has attempted to persuade state lawmakers without success to “amend the CPA to eliminate or curtail the basis for a fee/cost recovery by defendants” as recently as 2021.

“The Court does not find any serious abuse of governmental power here, but the State’s conduct in this matter raises concerns about government overreach,” Whedbee wrote.

The judge also agreed with Value Village, which said that the lawsuit was “needless” and the AG’s Office has not convincingly proven otherwise.

McClatchy contacted the AG’s Office Friday for comment on the situation.

“The court has ruled it will consider a fee award. It has not yet determined an amount. The amount is in dispute. Our response is due at the end of August,” said Brionna Aho, communications director for the AG’s office. “A decision is expected no earlier than the end of September, based on the briefing schedule.”

Aho told McClatchy that “there is no fair version of this story that does not include that our Office’s Consumer Protection Division and other public interest affirmative litigation divisions have recovered more than $1.34 billion in 2022 alone.”

Recoveries from companies such as Purdue Pharma, Facebook and Amazon were noted in a list of recoveries from 2022 provided by Aho.

She added that if Judge Whedbee does award a fee, it will be awarded out of the Adverse Judgment Reserve. That account is funded by recoveries from other successful cases, meaning “no general fund or tax-funded revenues are implicated.”