This bill adds a new business-entity liability provision to chapter 9A.40 RCW that allows prosecution of a business entity for human trafficking offenses under RCW 9A.40.100 or 9A.40.110 only where the entity knowingly engages in conduct that constitutes those offenses, or where an employee or nonemployee agent engages in such conduct as part of a pattern of activity for the direct benefit of the entity and the entity knew it was occurring and failed to take effective action to stop it. When a business entity is prosecuted under this provision, the court may impose additional civil penalties including a fine of up to $1,000,000 per offense, disgorgement of profits from the violating activity, and debarment from state and local government contracts. For this business liability section, “human trafficking” is defined as trafficking in the first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.100 or coercion of involuntary servitude under RCW 9A.40.110. The bill also creates a victim confidentiality requirement in chapter 9A.40 RCW directing law enforcement officers and prosecuting agencies to keep confidential the identity, pictures, and images of the alleged victim and the victim’s family in investigations or prosecutions under RCW 9A.40.100 or 9A.40.110, except when disclosure is necessary for investigation or prosecution, required by law or court order, or necessary to ensure provision of services or benefits for the victim or family. It reenacts and amends RCW 42.56.240 (public records exemptions) to add or clarify exemptions for investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information, including new or clarified exemptions relating to child sexual assault/commercial sexual exploitation, human trafficking victim images and identifiers in matters under RCW 9A.40.100/.110, and body-worn camera recordings. The amended public records section defines “identifying information” and “contact information,” references the definition of “commercial sexual exploitation,” and establishes procedures and identification requirements for requesting body-worn camera recordings; certain requesters identified in the bill (including executive directors of the Washington State commissions on African American affairs, Asian Pacific American affairs, and Hispanic affairs) have specified rights to obtain recordings and some listed requesters may not be required to pay redaction costs. Affected parties identified in the bill include business entities, employees and nonemployee agents, law enforcement and prosecuting agencies, courts, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Department of Corrections, custodians of body-worn camera and related records, and persons protected by the public-records exemptions. The bill was read for the first time on 01/23/26. The provided facts are incomplete: subsection (14)(f) and the remainder of the RCW 42.56.240 amendments are not included here, and the identity of “the commission” referenced in subsection (2) is not specified in the extracted material.

If enacted, businesses would face a real risk of criminal prosecution and serious financial penalties when trafficking is tied to their operations: companies can be charged if they knowingly engage in trafficking or if employees or agents repeatedly traffic for the company’s direct benefit and the company knew and did not act. That exposure could lead to fines up to $1,000,000 per offense, orders to give up profits from the illegal activity, and being barred from state and local contracts, which will likely push companies to increase compliance, oversight of workers and contractors, and legal or insurance spending to manage the new risks. For law enforcement, prosecutors, and the public, the practical change is tighter protection of alleged victims’ identities, images, and family information in trafficking and related sexual exploitation cases, along with expanded public-records exemptions and new rules for releasing body-worn camera footage (requesters must identify a person or incident, some officials have specific access rights, and some requesters cannot be charged redaction fees). Agencies will likely face more administrative work to verify requesters, manage redactions, and transfer certain investigative reports, and some details about access and exemptions remain unclear because parts of the amended public-records section and the identity of one referenced commission were not included in the provided text.