Va. Code » Title 59.1. Trade and Commerce » Chapter 4.1. Remedies for Violations of Preceding Chapters and Chapter 6, Article 8, of Title 18.2
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-68.3 (2026)

Action for damages or penalty for violation of Article 8, Chapter 6 of Title 18.2 or Chapter 2.1 of Title 59.1; attorney's fees

✓ 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 who suffers loss as the result of a violation of Article 8 (§ 18.2-214 et seq.), Chapter 6 of Title 18.2 or Chapter 2.1 (§ 59.1-21.1 et seq.) of Title 59.1 shall be entitled to bring an individual action to recover damages, or $100, whichever is greater. Certified copies of the transcript and exhibits in evidence in any final proceeding in which the Attorney General has obtained a permanent injunction for a violation of Article 8, Chapter 6 of Title 18.2 or Chapter 2.1 of Title 59.1 shall be admissible in evidence in any action brought pursuant to this section by any person claiming damage as a result of the enjoined conduct. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in addition to the damages recovered by the aggrieved party, such person may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees.

1973, c. 537; 1975, c. 43; 1976, c. 87.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Klaiber v. Freemason Assocs., Inc., 587 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Klaiber v. Freemason Assocs., Inc., 587 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2003). · cites it 16× “Asserting identical theories of actual fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, false advertising under Code § 59.1-68.3, breach of contract, and breach of the statutory warranty provided by Code § 55-79.”
Parker-Smith v. Sto Corp., 551 S.E.2d 615 (Va. 2001). · cites it 6× “FALSE ADVERTISING Pursuant to Code § 59.1-68.3, “[a]ny person who suffers loss as the result of” false advertising in violation of Code § 18.”
McMillion v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 552 S.E.2d 364 (Va. 2001). · cites it 4× “1 As pertinent to this appeal, the McMillions asserted against Dryvit, in both their first and second amended motions for judgment, claims of false advertising pursuant to Code §§ 59.1-68.3 and 18.2-216, and actual and constructive fraud.”
Virginia Beach Rehab Specialists, Inc. v. Augustine Med., Inc., 58 Va. Cir. 379 (2002). · cites it 14× “Count Three: Action for Damages Pursuant to Va. Code § 59.1-68.3 Count Three of the Motion for Judgment seeks damages against Defendants for alleged deceptive advertising practices, arising under two Virginia Code sections, Code § 59.”
Maldonado v. Nutri/Sys., Inc., 776 F. Supp. 278 (E.D. Va. 1991). · cites it 15× “2-216 and section 59.1-68.3. Section 18.2-216 makes false advertising a class 1 misdemeanor, and section 59.”
BHR Recovery Cmtys., Inc. v. Top Seek, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 3d 416 (E.D. Va. 2018). · cites it 5× “2012) ; see also Va. Code § 59.1-68.3 (limiting damages to the greater of $100 or actual damages).”
313 Freemason v. Freemason Assocs., Inc., 59 Va. Cir. 407 (2002). · cites it 7× “Count IV of their Motions for Judgment allege that Defendants violated Va. Code § 59.1-68.3, which provides that “[a]ny person who suffers loss as the result of a violation of.”
East West, LLC v. Rahman, 873 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D. Va. 2012). · cites it 3× “Va.Code § 59.1-68.3 gives any person who suffers a loss due to a violation of § 18.”
Bay Point Condo. Ass'n v. RML Corp., 52 Va. Cir. 432 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 7× “Code § 59.1-68.3 provides a civil remedy for a violation of § 18.”
Henry v. R. K. Chevrolet, Inc., 254 S.E.2d 66 (Va. 1979). · cites it 5× “2-216, and thereby gives rise to a cause of action for damages under Code § 59.1-68.3. Robert Christopher Henry filed his motion for judgment in the lower court alleging that he purchased two Chevrolet vans from R.”
Dana v. 313 Freemason, 587 S.E.2d 548 (Va. 2003). · cites it 2× “Asserting theories of actual fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, false advertising under Code § 59.1-68.3, breach of contract, and breach of the statutory warranty provided by Code § 55-79.”
Field v. Gmac LLC, 660 F. Supp. 2d 679 (E.D. Va. 2008). · cites it 3× “” However, plaintiffs complaint makes no allegations whatsoever regarding the nature of such alleged false advertising or intent to sell anything at a price other than that advertised.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.