§ 123.002.Cause of Action

The cause of action, and it reaches three levels of involvement.

Only a party to the communication may sue. That is the standing limit, and it excludes a person discussed in a conversation they took no part in.

First, the interceptor. A person who intercepts, attempts to intercept, or employs or obtains another to intercept or attempt to intercept the communication.

Four verbs, and two of them do distinctive work. An attempt is actionable even where nothing was heard, and one who employs or obtains another is liable without touching the equipment — which reaches the client who hires the investigator.

Second, the user. A person who uses or divulges information that he knows or reasonably should know was obtained by interception.

"Reasonably should know" is an objective standard, so a recipient cannot rely on not having asked where a recording came from.

Third, the facilitator. A landlord, building operator, or communication common carrier who, personally or through an agent or employee, aids or knowingly permits interception or attempted interception.

The distinction between "aids" and "knowingly permits" matters. Aiding requires an act; permitting requires knowledge — so a landlord who gives access to wiring is liable for aiding, and one who learns of interception on the premises and allows it to continue is liable for permitting.

Subsection (b) removes the claim where the interception is authorized by federal law — Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, the provision under which courts authorize wiretaps for serious offenses.

That exception is about lawful authority, not about who is listening. An interception outside such authorization remains actionable.