Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.12 (2026)

Personal suit for injunction or actual damages

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. Any person threatened with injury or damage to his business or property by reason of a violation of this chapter may institute an action or proceeding for injunctive relief, disgorgement, and other forms of equitable monetary relief as the court deems appropriate when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief is granted in other cases.

B. Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of this chapter may recover the actual damages sustained, and, as determined by the court, the costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees. If the trier of facts finds that the violation is willful or flagrant, it may increase damages to an amount not in excess of three times the actual damages sustained.

1974, c. 545; 2023, c. 522.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1987–2007 · leading case: Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. Va. 1987). · cites it 3× “§ 15 (a) and Va.Code § 59.1-9.12. Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that Haigh (a) has not suffered an antitrust injury, and (b) has no standing to sue.”

Reid v. Boyle, 527 S.E.2d 137 (Va. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Code § 59.1-9.12(a) states: “Any person threatened with injury or damage to his business or property by reason of a violation of this chapter may institute an action or proceeding for injunctive relief when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief is…”

Vansant & Gusler, Inc. v. Washington, 429 S.E.2d 31 (Va. 1993). · cites it 2× “2-499 and -500 (civil action for damages authorized for violation of statute making it a crime to conspire to injure other persons in their trade or business); Code § 59.1-9.12 (personal action authorized for violation of Virginia Antitrust Act); Code § 59.”

California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “See Va.Code Ann. § 59.1-9.12; cf. 15 U.S.C. § 15 .”

Cavalier Tel., LLC v. Verizon Virginia Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D. Va. 2002). · cites it 3× “Va.Code § 59.1-9.12(b). But, since the Virginia Antitrust Act is to be harmonized with federal antitrust law, Cavalier’s state law antitrust claims must fail if its federal antitrust claims fail.”

Guy v. Tidewater Inv. Props., 41 Va. Cir. 218 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “2-500 (civil action for damages authorized for violation of statute making it a crime to conspire to injure other persons in their trade or business); Code § 59.1-9.12 (private action based on violation of Virginia Antitrust Act); Code § 59.”

Supermarket of Marlinton, Inc. v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 721 (W.D. Va. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 1367 (c)(3), a court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the district court dismisses all claims over which, it has original jurisdiction.”

Commonwealth v. Winslow, 9 Va. Cir. 130 (Prince William Cir. Ct. 1987). “Actions under the Virginia Antitrust Act are divided between personal suits (§ 59.1-9.12) and suits on behalf of the State (§ 59.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.12(a) — 1 case

Reid v. Boyle, 527 S.E.2d 137 (Va. 2000). “” Code § 59.1-9.12(a) states: “Any person threatened with injury or damage to his business or property by reason of a violation of this chapter may institute an action or proceeding for injunctive relief when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief is…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.12(b) — 2 cases

Cavalier Tel., LLC v. Verizon Virginia Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D. Va. 2002). “Va.Code § 59.1-9.12(b). But, since the Virginia Antitrust Act is to be harmonized with federal antitrust law, Cavalier’s state law antitrust claims must fail if its federal antitrust claims fail.”

Supermarket of Marlinton, Inc. v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 721 (W.D. Va. 1994). “§ 1367 (c)(3), a court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the district court dismisses all claims over which, it has original jurisdiction.”

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.