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

(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.

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.