U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 121— STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS

18 U.S.C. § 2701

Unlawful access to stored communications

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Offense.—Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever—(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.(b)Punishment.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State—(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and(2) in any other case—(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph; and(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under this subparagraph that occurs after a conviction of another offense under this section.(c)Exceptions.—Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized—(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 99–508, title II, § 201[(a)], Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1860; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), (U), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147, 2148; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(3), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498; Pub. L. 107–296, title XXII, § 2207(j)(2), formerly title II, § 225(j)(2), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2158, renumbered § 2207(j)(2), Pub. L. 115–278, § 2(g)(2)(I), Nov. 16, 2018, 132 Stat. 4178.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 107–296, § 2207(j)(2)(A), formerly § 225(j)(2)(A), as renumbered by Pub. L. 115–278, § 2(g)(2)(I), in introductory provisions, inserted “, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State” after “commercial gain”.

Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 107–296, § 2207(j)(2)(B), formerly § 225(j)(2)(B), as renumbered by Pub. L. 115–278, § 2(g)(2)(I), substituted “5 years” for “one year”.

Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 107–296, § 2207(j)(2)(C), formerly § 225(j)(2)(C), as renumbered by Pub. L. 115–278, § 2(g)(2)(I), substituted “10 years” for “two years”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–296, § 2207(j)(2)(D), formerly § 225(j)(2)(D), as renumbered by Pub. L. 115–278, § 2(g)(2)(I), added par. (2) and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows: “a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in any other case.”

1996—Subsec. (b)(1)(A), (2). Pub. L. 104–294 substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of under this title”.

1994—Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(U), substituted “under this title” for “not more than $250,000”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(K), substituted “under this title” for “not more than $5,000”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–508, title II, § 202, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1868, provided that: “This title and the amendments made by this title [enacting this chapter] shall take effect ninety days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1986] and shall, in the case of conduct pursuant to a court order or extension, apply only with respect to court orders or extensions made after this title takes effect.”

Short Title of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–618, § 1, Nov. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 3195, provided that: “This Act [enacting section 2710 of this title and renumbering former section 2710 as 2711 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988’.”

Short Title

This chapter is popularly known as the “Stored Communications Act”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 679 cases (216 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 14× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (a) (emphasis added). 18 U.”
In re iPhone Application Litig., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 12× “The Amended Consolidated Complaint contains thirteen causes of action: (1) Violation of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 , et seq., on behalf of the Geolocation Class against Apple only; (2) Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”),…”
Vista Mktg., LLC v. Terri A. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (a)(1). Terri asserts that when she reviewed Franklin’s emails, she did not use a facility through which an electronic communication service (“ECS”) was provided, and she did not access electronic communications that were in “electronic storage” 13 Case:…”
Robert C. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (a)(1). The SCA excepts from liability, however, “conduct authorized .”
Conner v. Tate, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (N.D. Ga. 2001). · cites it 13× “(“Wiretap Act”); the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., governing access to certain stored electronic records; the Georgia Wiretap Act, O.”
Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “, to the extent that the orders required Microsoft to produce the contents of a customer’s e‐ mail account stored on a server located outside the United States, and (2) holding Microsoft in civil contempt of court for its failure to comply with the Warrant.”
Council on Am.-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz, 793 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 8× “18 U.S.C. § 2701 (a). By its terms, criminal liability under Section 2701(a) arises where a person (i) “intentionally accesses” (ii) “a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided” (iii) “without authorization” or by “exceed[ing] an authorization”…”
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “[12] The government counters that, even if government agents violated the Fourth Amendment in obtaining the emails, they relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., a statute that allows the government to obtain certain electronic…”
Patrick Hately v. Dr. David Watts, 917 F.3d 770 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 1030 ; (2) the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 , et seq. ; and (3) the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va.”
In Re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consum. Privacy Litig., 806 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “Count II claims violation of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 . And Count III claims violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.”
Cornerstone Consultants, Inc. v. Prod. Input Solutions, L.L.C., 789 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Iowa 2011). · cites it 16× “1059 The parties in this “e-mail trespass” case assert that the critical question on the defendants’ motion to dismiss a claim pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., is, who is the “provider” of “electronic communications services” capable of…”
Carol Walker v. Brian Coffey, 956 F.3d 163 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “ttorney General of Pennsylvania 1600 Arch Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellees ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ RESTREPO, Circuit Judge Appellant Carol Lee Walker brought suit against a prosecutor and special agent from the Pennsylvania…”
Show all 679 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a) — 1 case
United States v. Councilman, 373 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 2004).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2701(c)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
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.