Pa. Cons. Stat. » 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. (CRIMES AND OFFENSES) / Chapter 57
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725 (2026)

  Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communication.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5725.  Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communication.

(a)  Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:

(1)  Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher.

(2)  Punitive damages.

(3)  A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

(b)  Waiver of sovereign immunity.--To the extent that the Commonwealth and any of its officers, officials or employees would be shielded from liability under this section by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, such immunity is hereby waived for the purposes of this section.

(c)  Defense.--It is a defense to an action brought pursuant to subsection (a) that the actor acted in good faith reliance on a court order or the provisions of this chapter.

(July 10, 1981, P.L.228, No.73, eff. 60 days; Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.)

 

Cross References.  Section 5725 is referred to in section 5713 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). · cites it 2× “18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725 (a) (2000). [3] Title 18U.”
Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998). · cites it 4× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as: [a]ny oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.”
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014). “; see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Act contains numerous exceptions and provides, inter alia, that a person may intercept communications without a court order if all parties to the communication give prior consent to the interception.”
Bristow v. Clevenger, 80 F. Supp. 2d 421 (M.D. Penn. 2000). · cites it 3× “However, because the statute does not provide a statute of limitations, the court must predict which of the Pennsylvania statutes of limitations the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply 7 *428 to an action for violation of 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5725, Pennsylvania’s law…”
McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “Although we have found no direct authority indicating that the issue of jurisdiction has been definitively determined, we have observed as follows regarding the inclusion of jurisdictional language in Section 5726 and its omission in Section 5725: Significantly, [Section 5726(a)…”
Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2007). “The Pennsylvania state wiretap statute contains a similar provision.”
Kenneth Hasson v. Fullstory Inc, 114 F.4th 181 (3rd Cir. 2024). “Unlike Calder, the claims in these cases are brought under Pennsylvania’s tort of intrusion upon seclusion and its wiretapping statute, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725 , and they concern the capture or extraction of information from the forum.”
Commonwealth v. Louden, 638 A.2d 953 (Pa. 1994). · cites it 2× “[2] Although the Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Act, See 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5725 and 5703, Section 5721 provides a statutorily created exclusionary rule.”
Keppley v. Sch. Dist. of Twin Valley, 866 A.2d 1165 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “Section 5725 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, authorizes a civil action by any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the Act.”
Boettger v. Loverro, 555 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “Today the majority holds that a newspaper is liable in a civil action under Section 5725 of the Wiretapping and Surveillance Control Act (Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, for publishing the contents of an intercepted communication obtained by one of its reporters from a public court…”
Boettger v. Miklich, 599 A.2d 713 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992). · cites it 4× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, as amended. [3] The trial court ruled as a matter of law that disclosure of the intercepted communications to the agents of the IRS and PDR violated the Act.”
Adams v. Luzerne Cnty., 36 F. Supp. 3d 511 (M.D. Penn. 2014). · cites it 3× “Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, “[a]ny person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept,…”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725(a) — 23 cases
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014). “; see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Act contains numerous exceptions and provides, inter alia, that a person may intercept communications without a court order if all parties to the communication give prior consent to the interception.”
Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998). “18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as: [a]ny oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.”
Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2007). “The Pennsylvania state wiretap statute contains a similar provision.”
McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “Although we have found no direct authority indicating that the issue of jurisdiction has been definitively determined, we have observed as follows regarding the inclusion of jurisdictional language in Section 5726 and its omission in Section 5725: Significantly, [Section 5726(a)…”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725(a)(1) — 1 case
Schwartz v. Dana Corp./Par. Div., 196 F.R.D. 275 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725(a)(3) — 2 cases
Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998). “18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as: [a]ny oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.”
Schwartz v. Dana Corp./Par. Div., 196 F.R.D. 275 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725(b) — 6 cases
Robinson v. Ridge, 996 F. Supp. 447 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025).
Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025).
J. Winig v. The Off. of the D.A. of Philadelphia (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725(c) — 3 cases
Boettger v. Miklich, 599 A.2d 713 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992). “18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, as amended. [3] The trial court ruled as a matter of law that disclosure of the intercepted communications to the agents of the IRS and PDR violated the Act.”
Dance v. Com., Pennsylvania State Police, 726 A.2d 4 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
J. Winig v. The Off. of the D.A. of Philadelphia (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.