§ 5747. Civil action.
(a) Cause of action.--Except as provided in subsection 5743(e) (relating to requirements for governmental
access), any provider of electronic communication service, subscriber or customer
aggrieved by any violation of this subchapter in which the conduct constituting the
violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind may, in a civil
action, recover from the person or entity which engaged in the violation such relief
as may be appropriate.
(b) Relief.--In a civil action under this section, appropriate relief shall include:
(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;
(2) damages under subsection (c); and
(3) reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(c) Damages.--The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the
actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a
result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive
less than the sum of $1,000.
(d) Defense.--A good faith reliance on:
(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization or a
statutory authorization;
(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 5713 (relating
to emergency situations); or
(3) a good faith determination that section 5704(10) (relating to exceptions to prohibitions
of interception and disclosure of communications) permitted the conduct complained
of;
is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this subchapter
or any other law.
(e) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after
the date upon which the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity
to discover the violation.
(Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.; Oct. 22, 2014, P.L.2522, No.151, eff. 60
days)
2014 Amendment. Act 151 amended subsec. (b).
1998 Amendment. Act 19 amended subsec. (d).
Notes of Decisions
McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
“See also Section 5747(e) of the Wiretap Act, as amended, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5747(e) (providing for equitable relief and money damages for unlawful access to stored communications and specifying that, “[a] civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after…”
Canada v. Samuel Grossi & Sons, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2020).
“18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5747(a). Section 5741(a) states in relevant part: [I]t is an offense to obtain, alter or prevent authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage by intentionally: (1) accessing without authorization a facility…”
F. Steckel v. Com. of PA, A.G.'s Off. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).
“§§ 5524(1), (2), (7); see also 18 Pa. C.S. § 5747(e) (“A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5747(a) — 1 case
Canada v. Samuel Grossi & Sons, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2020).
“18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5747(a). Section 5741(a) states in relevant part: [I]t is an offense to obtain, alter or prevent authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage by intentionally: (1) accessing without authorization a facility…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5747(e) — 2 cases
McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
“See also Section 5747(e) of the Wiretap Act, as amended, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5747(e) (providing for equitable relief and money damages for unlawful access to stored communications and specifying that, “[a] civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after…”
F. Steckel v. Com. of PA, A.G.'s Off. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).
“§§ 5524(1), (2), (7); see also 18 Pa. C.S. § 5747(e) (“A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.”
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.