Virginia
Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Virginia employers can generally read work email and review activity on company systems under the business-use exception that appears in both the federal wiretap law and Virginia's own wiretap act, since Virginia has no state monitoring-notice statute layered on top. State law also does its work in narrower places: social media accounts, vehicle tracking, and cameras in private spaces.
This article provides general legal information about Virginia employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a Virginia-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers Virginia law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal social media, and conduct workplace video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive Virginia's general recording-consent rules (see our Virginia recording laws guide) or GPS law outside employment (see our Virginia GPS tracking laws guide).
Federal and Virginia Wiretap Law: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
Two wiretap statutes govern an employer's interception of employee communications in Virginia: the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Virginia's own wiretap act at Va. Code sections 19.2-61 through 19.2-62. They are built the same way, and both matter, because the state penalty is the harsher of the two. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent (18 U.S.C. § 2511, part of the Title I scheme at sections 2510-2523), but it carves out a broad exception for the owner of a communications system. Under the 'business extension' exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), equipment an employer furnishes and uses in the ordinary course of its business, a category extended to the phone, email, and computer systems its staff use, falls outside the Act's definition of a regulated interception device, letting employers intercept communications on that system in the ordinary course of business.
Virginia's wiretap act is not a bystander here. Va. Code section 19.2-62(A)(1) makes it a Class 6 felony to intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure another person to intercept "any wire, electronic or oral communication," so an employer that intercepts employee communications is squarely inside the state chapter rather than outside it, and Va. Code section 19.2-69 lets the person intercepted sue for actual damages (with a statutory floor of $400 per day of violation or $4,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorney fees. Routine monitoring of company systems is still lawful in Virginia because the state act carries its own version of the same carve-out: Va. Code section 19.2-61 defines "electronic, mechanical or other device" to exclude a telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, or facility "furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business," language materially identical to the federal business-extension exemption. Va. Code section 19.2-62(B)(2) supplies a second, independent route: it is not an offense to intercept a communication where the person intercepting "is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." The practical point for a Virginia employer is that monitoring falling outside those exclusions is not only a federal problem, it is a state felony with its own civil damages exposure.
The leading case applying the federal exception is Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983): once a monitored call is determined to be personal rather than business-related, the employer's ordinary-course exception generally ends, and continued listening can create liability. Virginia has not enacted a state electronic-monitoring notice statute for phone, email, or internet monitoring; beyond the wiretap act described above, state law fills the gap only in the areas covered below.
Virginia is a one-party consent state for recording conversations under Va. Code section 19.2-62(B)(2): only one participant needs to agree for a recording to be lawful. That consent route and the ordinary-course exclusion in section 19.2-61 are two independent ways out of the same state prohibition; see our Virginia recording laws guide for the full rules, exceptions, and penalties.
Does Virginia Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. A small group of states, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and (starting in 2026) Maine, require employers to give written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use. Virginia has not enacted a comparable statute; Title 40.1, Chapter 3 (Protection of Employees) contains no general electronic-monitoring notice duty. A Virginia employer can generally monitor company email, internet, or phone lines relying on the ordinary-course exclusions in the federal and Virginia wiretap acts described above, without a state-mandated notice step.
Readers should be careful here: some online compliance guides cite a Virginia statute requiring electronic-monitoring notice and a ban on restroom or locker-room cameras. That description tracks Connecticut's notice law almost word for word, not anything in the Code of Virginia, and the section numbers cited do not correspond to any employee-monitoring statute on Virginia's official code site. Virginia's real protection against restroom and locker-room cameras comes from a different, criminal-law source, covered below.
That does not mean notice is legally irrelevant. Courts weighing an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy, relevant to common-law invasion-of-privacy claims, often look at whether the employer published a monitoring policy, even though no statute requires one.
Virginia's Social Media Privacy Law for Employees
Virginia's clearest state-specific employee monitoring statute is Va. Code section 40.1-28.7:5, enacted in 2015. It prohibits an employer from requiring a current or prospective employee to disclose the username and password to a personal social media account, or from requiring the employee to add a supervisor to the account's contact list. "Social media account" means a personal account for user-generated content, excluding an account the employer itself created or provided for work use.
The statute has real exceptions. An employer's existing right to request credentials is preserved when the account activity is reasonably believed relevant to a formal investigation of an alleged violation of law or the employer's own written policies, and credentials obtained that way may only be used for that investigation. The law also does not stop an employer from viewing publicly available information, and an employer that inadvertently receives login information through an employer-issued device is not liable so long as it does not use the credentials.
Virginia's law bars retaliation: an employer cannot discipline or discharge a current employee for exercising these rights, or refuse to hire an applicant for doing the same. Unlike Montana's parallel law, Virginia's statute does not spell out a specific private civil remedy or damages cap.
Video and Audio Surveillance in Virginia Workplaces
Virginia has no employment-specific video-surveillance statute, but general criminal law limits where a camera, employer-owned or not, can point. Va. Code section 18.2-386.1 makes it unlawful to knowingly create a videographic or still image of a nonconsenting person who is nude, in undergarments, or otherwise undressed in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, or similar location carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy. A violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor, or a Class 6 felony if the person is under 18. A related statute, Va. Code section 18.2-130, separately criminalizes using a peephole or aperture to secretly view someone in those same spaces; unlike section 18.2-386.1, it addresses viewing only, not recording. An employer that installs a camera in a restroom, locker room, or changing area, even for loss-prevention reasons, is exposed to criminal liability regardless of a posted policy. Virginia also gives victims a civil remedy: Va. Code section 8.01-40.4 lets anyone injured by conduct prohibited under section 18.2-386.1 sue for compensatory and punitive damages plus attorney fees, whether or not the conduct was criminally charged.
Cameras in common work areas, sales floors, warehouses, and entrances are generally permissible without a state-specific notice requirement. Audio recording of employees is governed separately by Virginia's wiretap act and its one-party consent rule discussed above; an employer that wants to record conversations, rather than merely reviewing stored business communications, needs that consent. Our Virginia workplace recording guide covers that question in depth, including an employee's own right to record at work.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of Virginia Employees
Virginia has not enacted a dedicated employer vehicle-tracking notice statute comparable to New Jersey's N.J. Stat. section 34:6B-22. The relevant general-purpose law is Va. Code section 18.2-60.5, a Class 1 misdemeanor for installing an electronic tracking device through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, then using it to track a person's location. One of its express exemptions applies directly to employers: it does not apply to "the owner of fleet vehicles, when tracking such vehicles," a fleet vehicle being one owned by a single entity and operated by that entity's employees for business purposes.
That exemption means a Virginia employer that owns the vehicles its employees drive for work is generally exempt from this statute's consent requirement, without needing the looser "owner consent" reading employers in some other states must rely on. An employer that leases, rather than owns, its work vehicles from a third party does not clearly fall within the fleet-vehicle definition, which is built around vehicles owned by the entity operating them, so a lessee-employer should not assume the same exemption applies. It does not resolve every question, particularly personal driving in a company vehicle or a tracker that also logs an employee's personal phone. For the general legal framework governing tracking devices in Virginia, see our Virginia GPS tracking laws guide.
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks and the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act
Employers increasingly use fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks, and in trucking, driver-facing cameras that capture biometric identifiers. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, is the strongest law of this kind, requiring written consent before collection and creating a private right of action; it does not apply outside Illinois. Virginia has no Illinois-style biometric consent statute.
Virginia does have a comprehensive privacy statute, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), Va. Code section 59.1-575 et seq., effective January 1, 2023. The VCDPA classifies biometric data used to uniquely identify a person as "sensitive data" and generally requires a consumer's consent before processing it, Va. Code section 59.1-578(A)(5). But the Act defines "consumer" as a Virginia resident "acting only in an individual or household context," expressly excluding anyone "acting in a commercial or employment context," Va. Code section 59.1-575, and section 59.1-576(C)(14) separately exempts data collected in the context of an employment role. An employee's fingerprint or face scan collected for a workplace time clock therefore falls outside both the VCDPA's protections and its scope. Virginia employees are protected mainly by employer policy and common-law privacy claims, not a dedicated biometric statute. See our Virginia biometric privacy guide for how the VCDPA's rules work outside employment.
What Virginia Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
An employee who believes an employer crossed a legal line has a few concrete options. A demand for a social media password, or retaliation for refusing one, can support a claim under Va. Code section 40.1-28.7:5. A camera in a restroom or locker room can support both a law enforcement report under Va. Code section 18.2-386.1 and a civil suit for damages under Va. Code section 8.01-40.4. Interception of a call or message that falls outside the ordinary-course exclusion in Va. Code section 19.2-61 and had no party's prior consent can support both a criminal complaint under Va. Code section 19.2-62 and a civil suit under Va. Code section 19.2-69, on top of any federal ECPA claim. Monitoring tied to a protected characteristic or concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act may instead fall to the Virginia Division of Human Rights or the NLRB.
Because Virginia's monitoring rules are split across criminal privacy law, the social media statute, the VCDPA, the state and federal wiretap acts, and federal labor law, an employee should keep records and consult a Virginia-licensed employment attorney rather than assume one statute covers the situation. For the broader 50-state picture, see our Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub and our general US recording laws guide.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Virginia employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Employment monitoring disputes often involve overlapping statutes, employer policy, and federal law, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Readers should consult an attorney licensed in Virginia for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Workplace Recording Laws
- Virginia GPS Tracking Laws
- Virginia Biometric Privacy Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More Virginia Laws
- Virginia AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Virginia At-Will Employment Laws
- Virginia Data Privacy Laws
- Virginia GPS Tracking Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Whistleblower Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer read my work email in Virginia?
Generally yes, once the email is on an employer-owned system. Virginia has no state monitoring-notice statute, and employers rely on the ordinary-course-of-business exclusion that appears in both the federal wiretap law, 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), and Virginia's own, Va. Code section 19.2-61. Interception that falls outside those exclusions is not just a federal problem: it is a Class 6 felony under Va. Code section 19.2-62.
Can my employer ask for my Facebook or Instagram password in Virginia?
No, not for personal accounts. Va. Code section 40.1-28.7:5 prohibits requiring a social media username or password, except when the account is reasonably believed relevant to a formal misconduct investigation or is already publicly available.
Does Virginia law require my employer to tell me I'm being monitored?
Not by a dedicated statute. Unlike Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine, Virginia has no general electronic-monitoring notice law, so no state-mandated notice is required before monitoring employer-owned systems.
Can my employer GPS track a company vehicle I drive in Virginia?
Generally yes. Va. Code section 18.2-60.5 expressly exempts 'the owner of fleet vehicles, when tracking such vehicles,' and an employer that owns the vehicle typically qualifies. No statute requires special notice for company-vehicle GPS tracking.
Can my employer put a camera in a Virginia workplace restroom or locker room?
No. Va. Code section 18.2-386.1 makes it a crime to create a nude or partially nude image of someone without consent in a restroom, locker room, or similar private space, including via an employer-installed camera. Victims can also sue civilly under Va. Code section 8.01-40.4.
Can my Virginia employer require a fingerprint scan for the time clock?
There is no Illinois-style biometric consent statute in Virginia. The VCDPA excludes employment-context individuals from its 'consumer' definition, Va. Code section 59.1-575, and separately exempts employment-context data, Va. Code section 59.1-576(C)(14), so its biometric consent requirement does not reach a workplace time clock.
Is Virginia a one-party consent state for recording conversations?
Yes. Under Va. Code section 19.2-62(B)(2), it is not an offense to intercept a communication when the person recording is a party to it or one party gave prior consent. Interception without that consent, and outside the ordinary-course exclusion in Va. Code section 19.2-61, is a Class 6 felony. See our Virginia recording laws guide for the full framework.
What can I do if my Virginia employer violates the social media password law?
An employee or applicant whose rights under Va. Code section 40.1-28.7:5 were violated should document what happened and consult a Virginia-licensed employment attorney, since the statute does not spell out a specific damages cap or claims procedure.
Updates
Corrected the wiretap analysis: Virginia's own wiretap act, not federal law alone, governs employer interception of employee communications, supplying a parallel ordinary-course-of-business exclusion (Va. Code section 19.2-61), a one-party-consent exception (section 19.2-62(B)(2)), Class 6 felony liability (section 19.2-62(A)(1)), and a civil damages action (section 19.2-69).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the fleet-vehicle GPS exemption to require ownership (not leasing), narrowed the Va. Code 18.2-130 description to viewing only (it does not cover recording), and re-anchored the employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring exception from 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i) to the correct business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of Virginia, Title 40.1: Labor and Employment
§ 40.1-28.7:5Social media accounts of current and prospective employeesIn force
A. As used in this section: "Employer" includes, in addition to the persons enumerated in the definition of employer in § 40.1-2, (i) any unit of state or local government and (ii) any agent, representative, or designee of a person or unit of government that constitutes an employer. "Social media account" means a personal account with an electronic medium or service where users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations. "Social media account" does not include an account (i) opened by an employee at the request of an employer; (ii) provided to an employee by an employer such as the employer's email account or other software program owned or operated exclusively by an employer; (iii) set up by an employee on behalf of an employer; or (iv) set up by an employee to impersonate an employer through the use of the employer's name, logos, or trademarks. B. An employer shall not require a current or prospective employee to: 1. Disclose the username and password to the current or prospective employee's social media account; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally
§ 18.2-386.1Unlawful creation of image of another; penaltyIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally create any videographic or still image by any means whatsoever of any nonconsenting person if (i) that person is (a) totally nude; (b) clad in undergarments; (c) in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or (d) not exposed to show the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast but such videographic or still image is obscene, as defined in § 18.2-372, when such nonconsenting person is in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom, or other location; or (ii) the videographic or still image is created by placing the lens or image-gathering component of the recording device in a position directly beneath or between a person's legs for the purpose of capturing an image of the person's intimate parts or undergarments covering those intimate parts when the intimate parts or undergarments would not otherwise be visible to the general public; and when the circumstances set forth in clause (i) or (ii) are otherwise such that the person being recorded would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights, Virginia Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits, Virginia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections
§ 18.2-60.5Unauthorized use of electronic tracking device; penaltyIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. Any person who installs or places an electronic tracking device through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, or causes an electronic tracking device to be installed or placed through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, and uses such device to track the location of any person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the installation, placement, or use of an electronic tracking device by: 1. A law-enforcement officer, judicial officer, probation or parole officer, or employee of the Department of Corrections when any such person is engaged in the lawful performance of official duties and in accordance with other state or federal law; 2. The parent or legal guardian of a minor when tracking (i) the minor or (ii) any person authorized by the parent or legal guardian as a caretaker of the minor at any time when the minor is under the person's sole care; 3. A legally authorized representative of a vulnerable adult, as defined in § 18.2-369; 4. The owner of fleet vehicles, when tracking such vehicles; 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 18.2-130Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosureIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Watkins (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2026)“…ah Code Ann. § 76-12-306;2 Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 2605;3 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-130;1 (in part),3 Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.1…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Virginia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Code of Virginia, Title 8.01: Civil Remedies and Procedure
§ 8.01-40.4Civil action for unlawful creation of image of another or unlawful dissemination or sale of images of anotherIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
A. Any person injured by an individual who engaged in conduct that is prohibited under § 18.2-386.1 or 18.2-386.2, whether or not the individual has been charged with or convicted of the alleged violation, may sue therefor and recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. B. No action shall be commenced under this section more than two years after the later of (i) the date of the last act in violation of § 18.2-386.1 or 18.2-386.2, (ii) the date on which such person attained 18 years of age, or (iii) the date on which such person discovered or reasonably should have discovered the prohibited conduct. C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on an interactive computer service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 230(f), for content provided by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Code of Virginia, Title 59.1: Trade and Commerce
§ 59.1-576Scope; exemptionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
A. This chapter applies to persons that conduct business in the Commonwealth or produce products or services that are targeted to residents of the Commonwealth and that (i) during a calendar year, control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers or (ii) control or process personal data of at least 25,000 consumers and derive over 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data. B. This chapter shall not apply to any (i) body, authority, board, bureau, commission, district, or agency of the Commonwealth or of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth; (ii) financial institution or data subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.); (iii) covered entity or business associate governed by the privacy, security, and breach notification rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 established pursuant to HIPAA, and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (P.L. 111-5); (iv) nonprofit organization; or (v) institution of higher education. C. The following information and data is exempt from this chapter: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026), VCDPA Compliance Checklist for Businesses (2026), Virginia Data Privacy Laws: VCDPA Consumer Rights Guide (2026)
§ 59.1-575DefinitionsIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Affiliate" means a legal entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another legal entity or shares common branding with another legal entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" or "controlled" means (i) ownership of, or the power to vote, more than 50 percent of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of a company; (ii) control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors or of individuals exercising similar functions; or (iii) the power to exercise controlling influence over the management of a company. "Authenticate" means verifying through reasonable means that the consumer, entitled to exercise his consumer rights in § 59.1-577, is the same consumer exercising such consumer rights with respect to the personal data at issue. "Biometric data" means data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that is used to identify a specific individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Smart Glasses Recording Laws, What Is the VCDPA? Virginia's Data Privacy Law Explained, Virginia Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Code of Virginia, Title 19.2: Criminal Procedure
§ 19.2-62Interception, disclosure, etc., of wire, electronic or oral communications unlawful; penalties; exceptionsIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who: 1. Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication; 2. Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical or other device to intercept any oral communication; 3. Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or 4. Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. B. 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts read Section 19.2-62 in step with the federal wiretap act. Global Policy Partners, LLC v. Yessin (2009) held that accessing email stored on a destination server is not an intercept, and Wilks v. Commonwealth (1977) held a conversation police recorded through a cooperating coconspirator was not a protected oral communication.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Belmer v. Commonwealth (Court of Appeals of Virginia 2001, 36 Va. App. 448)✓A juvenile arrested for robbery whispered to his mother's boyfriend in a police interview room while a detective listened in; the court found no reasonable expectation of privacy, so Chapter 6, which carries the Section 19.2-62 ban, did not bar the detective's testimony.
- Wilks v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court of Virginia 1977, 217 Va. 885)✓An arson conspirator agreed to be wired and drew the defendant into a taped shop-talk about the fires; the court held the defendant had no justifiable expectation of noninterception, so the talk was not an oral communication protected by Chapter 6 and the tape was admissible.
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…16.02 (Supp. 2001); Utah Code Ann. § 77 23a4 (1982); Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62 (1995); W. Va. Code § 62 -1D-3 (2000)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Interstate Calls, Virginia Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules, Virginia Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy
§ 19.2-61DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter: "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed; "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception; "Communications common carrier" means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in communication by wire or radio or in radio transmission of energy; "Contents" when used with respect to any wire, electronic or oral communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport or meaning of that communication; "Electronic, mechanical or other device" means any device or apparatus that can be used to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by the subscriber or user for connection to the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wilks v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court of Virginia 1977, 217 Va. 885)“…rception under circumstances justifying such expectations.” Va. Code § 19.2-61(2). 3 Thus, an oral co…”
- Global Policy Partners, LLC v. Yessin (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2009, 686 F. Supp. 2d 631)“…tually identical to the ECPA’s definition. See Va.Code § 19.2-61 (defining “intercept” to mean “any aura…”
- Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…e Ann. §§ 77-23a-3(13), 77-23a-4(1)(b)(i), (7)(b) Virginia: Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.2-61, 19.2-62(A)(1), (B)(2) Washington: Wash…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.2-69Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure, or useIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall (i) have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications and (ii) be entitled to recover from any such person: 1. Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $400 a day for each day of violation or $4,000, whichever is higher, provided that liquidated damages shall be computed at the rate of $800 a day for each day of violation or $8,000, whichever is higher, if the wire, electronic, or oral communication intercepted, disclosed, or used is between (i) persons married to each other; (ii) an attorney and client; (iii) a licensed practitioner of the healing arts and patient; (iv) a licensed professional counselor, licensed clinical social worker, licensed psychologist, or licensed marriage and family therapist and client; or (v) a clergy member and person seeking spiritual counsel or advice; 2. Punitive damages; and 3. A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Few (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2026)“…ing a civil claim for damages under Va. Code § 19.2-69. See Dkt. 1 at 1-3. Cc. Stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Virginia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee Rights and Employer Rules, Virginia AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Va. Code section 40.1-28.7:5, Social media accounts of current and prospective employees(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), business-extension exemption for employer-furnished equipment used in the ordinary course of business(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(law.resource.org)
- Va. Code section 18.2-60.5, Unauthorized use of electronic tracking device; penalty (fleet-vehicle exemption)(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 18.2-386.1, Unlawful creation of image of another; penalty(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 18.2-130, Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 8.01-40.4, Civil action for unlawful creation of image of another(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 19.2-62, Interception, disclosure, etc., of wire, electronic or oral communications unlawful; penalties; exceptions(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 59.1-575, Definitions (Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, 'consumer' excludes employment context)(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 59.1-576, Scope; exemptions (Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, employment-context data exemption)(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov
- Va. Code section 19.2-61, Definitions (Virginia wiretap act; 'electronic, mechanical or other device' excludes equipment furnished and used in the ordinary course of business)(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code section 19.2-69, Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure, or use(law.lis.virginia.gov)