Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12

Civil relief; damages

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Any person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation of any provision of this article or by any act of computer trespass set forth in subdivisions A 1 through A 8 of § 18.2-152.4 regardless of whether such act is committed with malicious intent may sue therefor and recover for any damages sustained and the costs of suit. Without limiting the generality of the term, "damages" shall include loss of profits.

B. If the injury under this article arises from the transmission of spam in contravention of the authority granted by or in violation of the policies set by the electronic mail service provider where the defendant has knowledge of the authority or policies of the EMSP or where the authority or policies of the EMSP are available on the electronic mail service provider's website, the injured person, other than an electronic mail service provider, may also recover attorneys' fees and costs, and may elect, in lieu of actual damages, to recover the lesser of $10 for each and every spam message transmitted in violation of this article, or $25,000 per day. The injured person shall not have a cause of action against the electronic mail service provider that merely transmits the spam over its computer network. Transmission of electronic mail from an organization to its members shall not be deemed to be spam.

C. If the injury under this article arises from the transmission of spam in contravention of the authority granted by or in violation of the policies set by the electronic mail service provider where the defendant has knowledge of the authority or policies of the EMSP or where the authority or policies of the EMSP are available on the electronic mail service provider's website, an injured electronic mail service provider may also recover attorneys' fees and costs, and may elect, in lieu of actual damages, to recover $1 for each and every intended recipient of a spam message where the intended recipient is an end user of the EMSP or $25,000 for each day an attempt is made to transmit a spam message to an end user of the EMSP. In calculating the statutory damages under this provision, the court may adjust the amount awarded as necessary, but in doing so shall take into account the number of complaints to the EMSP generated by the defendant's messages, the defendant's degree of culpability, the defendant's prior history of such conduct, and the extent of economic gain resulting from the conduct. Transmission of electronic mail from an organization to its members shall not be deemed to be spam.

D. At the request of any party to an action brought pursuant to this section, the court may, in its discretion, conduct all legal proceedings in such a way as to protect the secrecy and security of the computer, computer network, computer data, computer program and computer software involved in order to prevent possible recurrence of the same or a similar act by another person and to protect any trade secrets of any party and in such a way as to protect the privacy of nonparties who complain about violations of this section.

E. The provisions of this article shall not be construed to limit any person's right to pursue any additional civil remedy otherwise allowed by law.

F. A civil action under this section must be commenced before expiration of the time period prescribed in § 8.01-40.1. In actions alleging injury arising from the transmission of spam, personal jurisdiction may be exercised pursuant to § 8.01-328.1.

1984, c. 751; 1985, c. 92; 1999, cc. 886, 904, 905; 2003, cc. 987, 1016; 2005, cc. 746, 761, 827; 2010, cc. 489, 529.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Patrick Hately v. Dr. David Watts

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patrick Hately v. Dr. David Watts (2019) ca4 · cites it 3× “See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12 (A). And second, that the court incorrectly determined that he failed to plausibly allege injury to person or property within the meaning of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.”

Supinger v. Virginia (2016) vawd · cites it 3× “…and the costs of suit” to "[a]ny person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation” of the statute. Va. Code § 18.2-152.12(A).”

AvePoint, Inc. v. Power Tools, Inc. (2013) vawd · cites it 3× “” Va.Code § 18.2-152.12(A). Upon review of the amended complaint, the court is constrained to conclude that allegations pled in support of Count IX are sufficient to withstand Axceler’s motion to dismiss.”

SecureInfo Corp. v. Telos Corp. (2005) vaed · cites it 2× “Section 18.2-152.12(a) provides a civil cause of action for persons harmed by violators of the VCCA.”

Bowie v. Murphy (2006) va · cites it 2× “The circuit court subsequently sustained a demurrer to Bowie's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Bowie failed to allege that the defendants engaged in conduct sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc. (1998) vaed · cites it 2× “” Section 18.2-152.12 authorizes a private right of action for violations of the Act.”

Hackman v. Wilson (In re Hackman) (2015) vaeb · cites it 5× “Va. Code § 18.2-152.12. To show a violation of the VCCA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant: (1) used a computer or computer network without authority (2) with the intent to obtain property or services by false pretenses, embezzle or commit larceny, or convert the…”

Tryco, Inc. v. U.S. Medical Source, L.L.C. (2010) vaccfairfax · cites it 4× “Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12 . Tryco argues that Brian Thomas violated the Computer Trespass Act on April 9, 2008, when he purposefully copied the “Lackland Contacts” list and the “Bank and Trades” document on to his flash drive and deleted them from his Tryco computer.”

S. R. v. INOVA Healthcare Services (1999) vaccfairfax · cites it 3× “While that statute is a criminal statute, Virginia Code § 18.2-152.12 grants civil recourse to a party aggrieved under § 18.”

America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc. (2000) iand “Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12(C) (1999). Application of the VCCA to the facts of this case is a simpler matter than application of the CFAA, largely because of the VCCA’s specific definition of relevant terms.”

McGladrey & Pullen, L.L.P. v. Shrader (2003) vaccrockingham · cites it 4× “on three basis: (1) Defendant had a right to access the computer and therefore was not a person “without authority” to access the computer; (2) PBGH has no standing to bring such a claim because it was not the owner of the computer data until January 15, 2001; and (3) Punitive…”

Stultz v. Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (2015) vawd · cites it 2× “5 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person is guilty of the crime of computer invasion of privacy when he uses a computer or computer network and intentionally examines without authority any employment, salary, credit or any other financial or identifying information .”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12(A) — 6 cases

Supinger v. Virginia (2016) vawd “…and the costs of suit” to "[a]ny person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation” of the statute. Va. Code § 18.2-152.12(A).”

AvePoint, Inc. v. Power Tools, Inc. (2013) vawd “” Va.Code § 18.2-152.12(A). Upon review of the amended complaint, the court is constrained to conclude that allegations pled in support of Count IX are sufficient to withstand Axceler’s motion to dismiss.”

McGladrey & Pullen, L.L.P. v. Shrader (2003) vaccrockingham “on three basis: (1) Defendant had a right to access the computer and therefore was not a person “without authority” to access the computer; (2) PBGH has no standing to bring such a claim because it was not the owner of the computer data until January 15, 2001; and (3) Punitive…”

AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. v. Tanase (2024) vaed

Hains v. Adams (2019) vaed

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12(B) — 1 case

AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. v. Tanase (2024) vaed

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12(C) — 1 case

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12(a) — 1 case

SecureInfo Corp. v. Telos Corp. (2005) vaed “Section 18.2-152.12(a) provides a civil cause of action for persons harmed by violators of the VCCA.”

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.