18 U.S.C. § 2520 — Recovery of civil damages authorized

submitted 58 years ago by Pub. L. 90-351 to r/title-18-CRIMES-AND-CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE · 699 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section lets a person sue if their communications were illegally intercepted, disclosed, or used. Courts can award actual or statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Special dollar limits apply to certain satellite or radio cases. A good-faith reliance on a warrant or legal authorization is a complete defense. Suits must be filed within two years of discovering the violation.

(a) Except as section 2511(2)(a)(ii) provides, anyone whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may sue, in a civil action, the person or entity — other than the United States — who committed the violation, for whatever relief fits the situation.

(b) In such a lawsuit, appropriate relief can include (1) preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief; (2) damages under (c), plus punitive damages where appropriate; and (3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs actually incurred.

(c) Calculating damages: (1) If the violation was privately watching an unscrambled, unencrypted private satellite video communication, or listening to an unscrambled, unencrypted radio communication on frequencies the FCC has allocated for that purpose under a specific rule, and the conduct was not done for an illegal purpose or for commercial gain, the court must assess damages this way: (A) if the person has never before been enjoined under section 2511(5) or found liable in a prior lawsuit under this section, the court must award the greater of the plaintiff's actual damages or statutory damages of $50 to $500; (B) if the person has one prior instance of being enjoined or found liable, the court must award the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000. (2) For any other violation under this section, the court may award whichever is greater: (A) the plaintiff's actual damages plus any profits the violator made from the violation, or (B) statutory damages of whichever is greater — $100 for each day of the violation, or $10,000.

(d) It is a complete defense to any civil or criminal case under this chapter or any other law if the person acted in good-faith reliance on (1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, or a legislative or statutory authorization; (2) a request from an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2518(7); or (3) a good-faith belief that section 2511(3), 2511(2)(i), or 2511(2)(j) permitted the conduct.

(e) A civil lawsuit under this section must be filed within two years after the date the person suing first had a reasonable chance to discover the violation.

(f) If a court or a federal department or agency finds that the United States or one of its departments or agencies violated this chapter, and finds that the circumstances raise real questions about whether an employee acted willfully or intentionally, that department or agency must — once it gets a certified copy of the decision and findings — promptly start a proceeding to decide whether to discipline the employee. If the department or agency head decides discipline is not warranted, they must notify the relevant Inspector General and explain why.

(g) It also counts as a violation of this chapter, for purposes of a lawsuit under this section, if an investigative or law enforcement officer or a government entity willfully discloses or uses information beyond what section 2517 allows.

facts

- Citation: 18 U.S.C. § 2520, titled "Recovery of civil damages authorized," located within Title 18 of the U.S. Code. - Enacted by Pub. L. 90-351, title III, § 802, on June 19, 1968 (82 Stat. 223). - Length: 699 words, comprising subsections (a) through (g). - Amendment history: The section has been amended 7 times, with the source credit citing amendments from Pub. L. 91-358 (1970), Pub. L. 99-508 (1986), Pub. L. 107-56 (2001), Pub. L. 107-296 (2002, later renumbered by Pub. L. 115-278 in 2018), and Pub. L. 115-141 (2018). - Source credit contains 6 distinct public law references documenting the section's legislative history.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

(a)In General.—

Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.

(b)Relief.—

In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes—

(1)

such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2)

damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and

(3)

a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

(c)Computation of Damages.—

(1)

In an action under this section, if the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or if the communication is a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, then the court shall assess damages as follows:

(A)

If the person who engaged in that conduct has not previously been enjoined under section 2511(5) and has not been found liable in a prior civil action under this section, the court shall assess the greater of the sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, or statutory damages of not less than $50 and not more than $500.

(B)

If, on one prior occasion, the person who engaged in that conduct has been enjoined under section 2511(5) or has been found liable in a civil action under this section, the court shall assess the greater of the sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, or statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000.

(2)

In any other action under this section, the court may assess as damages whichever is the greater of—

(A)

the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation; or

(B)

statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.

(d)Defense.—

A good faith reliance on—

(1)

a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;

(2)

a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2518(7) of this title; or

(3)

a good faith determination that section 2511(3), 2511(2)(i), or 2511(2)(j) of this title permitted the conduct complained of;

is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.

(e)Limitation.—

A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

(f)Administrative Discipline.—

If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.

(g)Improper Disclosure Is Violation.—

Any willful disclosure or use by an investigative or law enforcement officer or governmental entity of information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for purposes of section 2520(a).

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 223; amended Pub. L. 91–358, title II, § 211(c), July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 654; Pub. L. 99–508, title I, § 103, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1853; Pub. L. 107–56, title II, § 223(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 293; Pub. L. 107–296, title XXII, § 2207(e), formerly title II, § 225(e), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2157, renumbered § 2207(e), Pub. L. 115–278, § 2(g)(2)(I), Nov. 16, 2018, 132 Stat. 4178; Pub. L. 115–141, div. V, § 104(1)(B), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1216.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1968Enacted · Pub. L. 90-351 · 82 Stat. 223
1970Amended · Pub. L. 91-358 · 84 Stat. 654
1986Amended · Pub. L. 99-508 · 100 Stat. 1853
2001Amended · Pub. L. 107-56 · 115 Stat. 293
2002Amended · Pub. L. 107-296 · 116 Stat. 2157
2018Amended · Pub. L. 115-141 · 132 Stat. 1216

The source credit shows that this section was added by Public Law 90–351, title III, § 802, enacted June 19, 1968, and originally published at 82 Stat. 223. The credit further indicates that the section has since been amended several times: by Public Law 91–358 (1970), Public Law 99–508 (1986), Public Law 107–56 (2001), Public Law 107–296 (2002, later renumbered by Public Law 115–278 in 2018), and Public Law 115–141 (2018). This history reflects sustained legislative attention to the statute over five decades, with revisions in the late 1960s, the mid-1980s, and the early 2000s in particular. Historical context: Public Law 90–351 is commonly known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title III of that Act is generally understood to be the federal wiretapping statute, enacted amid public concern over electronic surveillance, privacy, and law enforcement practices in the 1960s. The Act is commonly cited as having been intended to regulate the interception of wire and oral communications by both government and private actors, balancing law-enforcement needs against individual privacy interests. Civil remedy provisions such as this one are generally understood to have been included to give individuals a private means of enforcement against unlawful interception, complementing criminal penalties elsewhere in the chapter. Beyond this general understanding, the record does not establish the specific legislative intent behind each subsequent amendment listed in the source credit.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case