Snowflake Inc. agreed to a $4.77 million class action settlement after job applicants alleged the company posted Washington-based openings without listing the required wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits. The claims center on Washington’s pay-transparency rules (RCW 49.58.110), which were designed to reduce information gaps in hiring and help curb pay disparities by ensuring applicants can see compensation parameters before investing time in the process. The settlement covers people who applied for at least one Washington job between Jan. 1, 2023, and Oct. 17, 2025, and—if they qualify—payments are expected to be split evenly from the net fund, with an estimated individual payment of about $824.82 and automatic distribution unless a class member opts out. The lawsuit was filed because applicants argued that missing pay ranges and benefits descriptions deprived them of information the law explicitly requires, potentially affecting whether they applied, how they negotiated, and how efficiently they could compare roles. While Snowflake denied wrongdoing, the settlement is significant because it puts a concrete dollar figure on compliance risk for employers that rely on fast-moving recruiting practices, templated postings, or multi-state job ads that may not be tailored to Washington’s requirements. It also signals that even omissions that don’t involve unpaid wages can still lead to substantial exposure through statutory rights and class-wide claims. More broadly, this case fits into a growing wave of pay-transparency enforcement and litigation as states and cities—including Washington, California, Colorado, and New York—tighten rules on what must appear in job advertisements and how ranges must be presented. Employers operating nationally often face a patchwork of definitions (e.g., what counts as a “range,” how “benefits” must be described, and whether remote roles trigger a state’s posting rules), and similar suits have targeted large employers for allegedly posting roles without compliant ranges or with ranges viewed as unreasonably broad. As these regulations mature, the industry trend is toward more standardized compensation bands, closer review by HR and legal teams before postings go live, and greater scrutiny of third-party recruiting platforms that can inadvertently publish noncompliant listings in regulated jurisdictions.