RCW 19.108.030(1) permits recovery of actual loss and, separately, unjust enrichment not already captured in the actual-loss computation. The two are cumulative but non-duplicative.
ADA Motors, Inc. v. Butler, 7 Wn. App. 2d 53, 432 P.3d 445 (2018), review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1013 (2019) clarifies the burden structure for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving sales attributable to the trade secret. The burden then shifts to the defendant to establish any portion of those sales not attributable to the trade secret, and any expenses to be deducted in determining net profits. Id. at 63. The case arose from a car dealership's customer list; the jury found $12,496.12 of the defendant's profits attributable to use of a trade secret.
ADA Motors is also a reminder that trade secret verdicts are vulnerable on ordinary trial-management grounds. The Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial because the trial court excluded four witnesses without considering the factors required by Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).