18 U.S.C. § 2707

Civil action

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Cause of Action.—Except as provided in section 2703(e), any provider of electronic communication service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of this chapter 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, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.(b)Relief.—In a civil action under this section, appropriate relief includes—(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;(2) damages under subsection (c); and(3) a reasonable attorney’s fee 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. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.(d)Administrative Discipline.—If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.(e)Defense.—A good faith reliance on—(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization (including a request of a governmental entity under section 2703(f) of this title);(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2518(7) of this title; or(3) a good faith determination that section 2511(3), section 2702(b)(9), or section 2702(c)(7) of this title permitted the conduct complained of;is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.(f)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.(g)Improper Disclosure.—Any willful disclosure of a “record”, as that term is defined in section 552a(a) of title 5, United States Code, obtained by an investigative or law enforcement officer, or a governmental entity, pursuant to section 2703 of this title, or from a device installed pursuant to section 3123 or 3125 of this title, that is not a disclosure made in the proper performance of the official functions of the officer or governmental entity making the disclosure, is a violation of this chapter. This provision shall not apply to information previously lawfully disclosed (prior to the commencement of any civil or administrative proceeding under this chapter) to the public by a Federal, State, or local governmental entity or by the plaintiff in a civil action under this chapter.(Added Pub. L. 99–508, title II, § 201[(a)], Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1866; amended Pub. L. 104–293, title VI, § 601(c), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3469; Pub. L. 107–56, title II, §§ 223(b), title VIII, § 815, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 293, 384; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4005(f)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1813; Pub. L. 115–141, div. V, § 104(2)(B), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1216.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 115–141 amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (3) read as follows: “a good faith determination that section 2511(3) of this title permitted the conduct complained of;”.

2002—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 107–56, § 815. See 2001 Amendment note below.

2001—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–56, § 223(b)(1), inserted “, other than the United States,” after “person or entity”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 107–56, § 223(b)(2), added subsec. (d) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (d). Text read as follows: “If a court determines that any agency or department of the United States has violated this chapter and the court finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise the question whether or not an officer or employee of the agency or department acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or department concerned shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee.”

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 107–56, § 815, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, inserted “(including a request of a governmental entity under section 2703(f) of this title)” after “or a statutory authorization”.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 107–56, § 223(b)(3), added subsec. (g).

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–293, § 601(c)(1), substituted “other person” for “customer”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–293, § 601(c)(2), inserted at end “If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.”

Subsecs. (d) to (f). Pub. L. 104–293, § 601(c)(3), (4), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4005(f)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1813, provided that the amendment made by section 4005(f)(2) is effective Oct. 26, 2001.

Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1986, and, in the case of conduct pursuant to a court order or extension, applicable only with respect to court orders or extensions made after such effective date, see section 202 of Pub. L. 99–508, set out as a note under section 2701 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 257 cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Vista Mktg., LLC v. Terri A. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vista Mktg., LLC v. Terri A. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 14× “18 U.S.C. § 2707 . Franklin argues that § 2707(c) required the district court to award him $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the 450 violations that the jury found—or $450,000.”

Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004). · cites it 7× “§ 552a(g)(4) with the object of authorizing true liquidated damages remedies. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 94-938, p.”

Matthew Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LL, 875 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 2707 (e) (emphasis added). One such statutory authorization—the one relevant in this case—states: A [service] provider ,.”

Fayelynn Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “a grand jury- subpoena,” 18 U.S.C. § 2707 (e), the provider is immune from suit.”

Van Alstyne v. Elec. Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 7× “Thereafter, Van Alstyne brought suit under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2707 (a) (West 2000) (“SCA”), alleging that Leonard and ESL illegally accessed her personal email account.”

The Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc. v. New York Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Off., 78 N.E.3d 141 (NY 2017). · cites it 4× “The SCA -- which recognizes a variety of causes of action in connection with the release of electronic data that do not apply here (see 18 USC § 2707 ) -- does not provide a third party with an independent cause of action under section 2703 (d) to challenge the issuance of…”

United States v. Timothy Sanders, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Carpenter, et al. Page 12 among the remedies available under the Stored Communications Act.”

Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 759 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 9× “3 The Court also recommended that Plaintiffs return or destroy all copies of emails that contained privileged attorney-client communications.”

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 4× “As explained in greater detail below, the Court concludes that Brenner accessed Fell’s e-mails without authorization, in what would be a violation of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2707 , had a cause of action been brought pursuant to that statute.”

Freedman v. Am. Online, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Va. 2004). · cites it 7× “6 Although AOL concedes that a violation occurred, 7 it nonetheless contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs ECPA claim (i) because plaintiff offers no evidence that AOL violated the statute “with a knowing or intentional state of mind” as…”

Seale v. Peacock, 32 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 552a(g)(4) (emphasis added)—while the language of the SCA is permissive—“[t]he court may assess damages,” 18 U.S.C. § 2707 (c) (emphasis added). Mr.”

United States v. Gasperini, 894 F.3d 482 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 18 U.S.C. § 2707 (b) (listing "appropriate relief" in a "civil action" as "equitable or declaratory relief," "damages," and "a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred"); *489 18 U.”

Show all 257 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e) — 2 cases

Divine v. Volunteers of Am. of Ill., 319 F. Supp. 3d 994 (E.D. Ill. 2018).

Divine v. Volunteers of Am., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018).

— 18 U.S.C. § 2707(f) — 1 case

Petty v. Bluegrass Cellular, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2021).

— 18 U.S.C. § 2707(g) — 1 case

United States v. Jones, 207 F. Supp. 3d 576 (E.D.N.C. 2016).

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.