Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act aims to make job pay more transparent by requiring employers with 15 or more employees to include a wage scale or salary range, plus a general description of benefits and other compensation, in each job posting (RCW 49.58.110). The lawsuit, *Brinkman v. Target Corporation* (King County Superior Court), centers on allegations that Target posted openings in Washington without those required disclosures between January 1, 2023 and July 26, 2025—information that applicants say is crucial for deciding whether to apply, negotiating pay, and spotting potential inequities early in the hiring process. The case was filed as a class action because the alleged omission could have affected large numbers of applicants in the same way, and it seeks to enforce compliance through statutory remedies rather than requiring individuals to sue one by one. Target denies wrongdoing, but agreed to a $2.225 million settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation; after court-approved fees and other deductions, remaining funds are to be split equally among eligible Washington applicants who submit valid claims by March 31, 2026, with a final approval hearing scheduled for May 5, 2026. Beyond payouts, the settlement’s significance is that it reinforces the practical teeth of pay-transparency rules—encouraging large employers to audit job-posting practices, tighten recruiting workflows, and treat compensation disclosure as a compliance obligation, not a marketing choice. More broadly, this dispute fits into a growing wave of pay-transparency enforcement and litigation as states and cities roll out rules intended to reduce pay disparities and information asymmetry in hiring. Similar claims have been brought against major employers under comparable laws elsewhere, and companies operating across multiple jurisdictions increasingly face a patchwork of requirements on when ranges must be posted, how ranges are defined, and whether benefits descriptions are sufficiently “general” to comply. As these cases accumulate, they help clarify what regulators and courts consider an adequate salary range disclosure and push the recruiting industry toward standardized, documented pay-range practices that can withstand legal scrutiny in high-volume hiring environments.