A. Any natural person who is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter shall be entitled to initiate an action against any responsible person to enjoin such violation and to recover from any responsible person damages in the amount of $500 for a first violation, $1,000 for a second violation, and $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
B. If the court finds a willful violation, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of any damages awarded for a first or second violation under subsection A to an amount not exceeding $5,000.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in addition to any damages awarded, such person may be awarded under subsection A or B reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
D. An action for damages, attorney fees, and costs brought under this section may be filed in an appropriate general district court or small claims court against any responsible person so long as the amount claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional limits set forth in § 16.1-77 or 16.1-122.2, as applicable. Any action brought under this section that includes a request for an injunction shall be filed in an appropriate circuit court.
2001, cc. 528, 553; 2019, cc. 256, 264; 2020, cc. 263, 607.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case:
Laccinole (E.D. Va. 2026).
Laccinole (E.D. Va. 2026).
· cites it 8× “§ 227 (c) and Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-515 . Plaintiff's 10 suit also addresses his own injuries, not those of another party, which were not generalized to the public as he alone received these specific calls.”
Gonzalez v. Homefix Custom Remodeling Corp (E.D. Va. 2023).
· cites it 3× “§ 227 (c)(5); Va. Code § 59.1-515(A). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated both the TCPA and the VTPPA by calling individuals whose phone numbers were listed on the national Do-Not-Call registry.”
Bryant v. Mut. Of Omaha Ins. Co. (E.D. Va. 2023).
· cites it 3× “§ 227 (b)(3) (Count I); Va. Code § 59.1-515 (Counts II-IV). Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant from making phone calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.”
Clemens v. Counselorchen, P.C. (E.D. Va. 2025).
· cites it 3× “00 under the VTPPA, Va. Code § 59.1-515(C). To appeal this decision, Plaintiff must file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order.”
Zhu v. Dish Network, LLC, 808 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Va. 2011).
“The VTPPA permits a defense if the alleged violator has established reasonable practices and procedures to prevent actions in violation of the privacy act, including procedures in accordance with the National Do Not Call Registry and/or federal regulations: It shall be an…”
Gonzalez v. Homefix Custom Remodeling Corp (D. Md. 2023).
“§ 227 (c)(5); Va. Code § 59.1-515(A). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated both the TCPA and the VTPPA by calling individuals whose phone numbers were listed on the national Do-Not-Call registry.”
Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-515(A): 2 cases
Gonzalez v. Homefix Custom Remodeling Corp (E.D. Va. 2023).
“§ 227 (c)(5); Va. Code § 59.1-515(A). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated both the TCPA and the VTPPA by calling individuals whose phone numbers were listed on the national Do-Not-Call registry.”
Gonzalez v. Homefix Custom Remodeling Corp (D. Md. 2023).
“§ 227 (c)(5); Va. Code § 59.1-515(A). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated both the TCPA and the VTPPA by calling individuals whose phone numbers were listed on the national Do-Not-Call registry.”
Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-515(C): 2 cases
Clemens v. Counselorchen, P.C. (E.D. Va. 2025).
“00 under the VTPPA, Va. Code § 59.1-515(C). To appeal this decision, Plaintiff must file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order.”
Laccinole (E.D. Va. 2026).
“§ 227 (c) and Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-515 . Plaintiff's 10 suit also addresses his own injuries, not those of another party, which were not generalized to the public as he alone received these specific calls.”
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.