Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-69 (2026)

Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure, or use

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall (i) 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 communications and (ii) be entitled to recover from any such person:

1. Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $400 a day for each day of violation or $4,000, whichever is higher, provided that liquidated damages shall be computed at the rate of $800 a day for each day of violation or $8,000, whichever is higher, if the wire, electronic, or oral communication intercepted, disclosed, or used is between (i) persons married to each other; (ii) an attorney and client; (iii) a licensed practitioner of the healing arts and patient; (iv) a licensed professional counselor, licensed clinical social worker, licensed psychologist, or licensed marriage and family therapist and client; or (v) a clergy member and person seeking spiritual counsel or advice;

2. Punitive damages; and

3. A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or under any other law.

Code 1950, § 19.1-89.9; 1973, c. 442; 1975, c. 495; 1988, c. 889; 2010, c. 343; 2015, c. 672; 2020, c. 900.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Phillips v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 996 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Phillips v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 996 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 77 -23a-11 (1998); Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-69 (Michie 1998); W.”

Few (E.D. Va. 2026). · cites it 4× “Few’s communications with his wife and Attorney Robert Windle, supporting a civil claim for damages under Va. Code § 19.2-69. See Dkt. 1 at 1-3. Cc.”

Eshaghi v. Kunz, 41 Va. Cir. 476 (Chesterfield Cir. Ct. 1997). · cites it 7× “Eshaghi’s Motion for Judgment includes a single count seeking damages pursuant to Code § 19.2-69, a statute providing a civil remedy for criminal violations of the Wiretapping Act.”

Hulcher v. City of Richmond, 31 Va. Cir. 468 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1993). · cites it 3× “See Va. Code § 19.2-69. Plaintiff argues that defendant’s listening to, disclosing, and disseminating the content of the conversation constitute an interception within the meaning of the Act.”

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.