Washington
Washington has no statute on service deposits, and its Supreme Court favors a clause that is a true estimate rather than a penalty. A kept deposit holds when the amount is a reasonable forecast, made at booking, of a loss that is very hard to measure. The court judges it as of the day the agreement was made, so refilling the slot later does not undo a fair deposit: in Watson v. Ingram, a home sale, it enforced a buyer’s $15,000 nonrefundable earnest money deposit on the house though the seller later sold the house for the same price. A deposit whose amount moves in ways that have nothing to do with the shop’s loss is the kind the court struck.
Does a non-refundable deposit hold up in Washington?
The law’s word for a set sum agreed in advance is liquidated damages.
The Washington Supreme Court upholds a liquidated damages clause when the amount is a reasonable forecast of just compensation for harm that is impossible or very hard to measure (Walter Implement, Inc. v. Focht). In Watson v. Ingram, it judged a $15,000 nonrefundable earnest money deposit as of the day the contract was formed, used actual damages only as evidence of whether the estimate was reasonable, and enforced it though the seller later sold the house for the same price. In Walter Implement, an equipment lease formula under which the earlier the default, the greater the penalty, with no reasoning tying it to the harm, was struck, and the company leasing the equipment out was limited to its actual damages.
“True liquidated damages clauses, those that are not penalties, are favored and will be upheld. ... First, the amount fixed must be a reasonable forecast of just compensation for the harm that is caused by the breach. Second, the harm must be such that it is incapable or very difficult of ascertainment.” Walter Implement, Inc. v. Focht, 107 Wn.2d 553, 730 P.2d 1340 (1987) · Watson v. Ingram, 124 Wn.2d 845, 881 P.2d 247 (1994)
Showing your refund policy
No refund-policy disclosure statute was found. The Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, was read in full for “refund” with no match, and the Attorney General’s consumer pages name no posting law. Its guidance on store refunds says merchants have a legal and ethical obligation to explain their return and refund terms clearly, but that page is about merchandise.
Body-art rules and money
Washington’s body art law gives the Department of Licensing director one money power: after a hearing finds that a licensee broke the chapter or its rules, the director can order restitution, paying back what was lost, or a refund to anyone injured by the violation. It is a penalty for a violation, not a deposit rule. The practice rules (chapter 308-22 WAC) and the sterilization and infection control rules (chapter 246-145 WAC) say nothing about deposits, cancellations or refunds; the only money in them is license fees, in chapter 308-22.
“following a hearing ... (7) Requiring the licensee to make restitution or a refund as determined by the director to any individual injured by the violation” RCW 18.300.110(7) · Chapter 308-22 WAC · Chapter 246-145 WAC
This page summarizes public law in plain language, with the source each point comes from, read at the source on 2026-09-23. It is not legal advice.