On May 19, 2026, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger announced that she intends to veto what would have been Virginia’s first class action statute. Virginia and Mississippi remain the only two states without a class action mechanism.
Class actions in Virginia had been discussed for some time, and with Democratic majorities in both chambers and a Democratic governor, proponents saw 2026 as their opportunity. Not so.
General Assembly overreach
The enrolled version of SB 229 modeled itself on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23 but went further in several plaintiff-friendly respects:
- It added a fifth superiority factor — “the practical ability of individual class members to pursue their claims without certification” — not found in FRCP 23, making certification easier by letting courts weigh whether plaintiffs have realistic alternatives.
- It amended the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) to clarify that statutory damages of $500 per violation (or, for willful conduct, the greater of treble actual damages or $1,000 per violation) are available in class suits “to the extent practicable.” Critically, the enrolled version declared this provision “declarative of existing law” — meaning the General Assembly took the position that per-violation damages were always available under the VCPA. FRCP 23 is purely procedural and does not create substantive damages.
- It expressly eliminated the reliance requirement for VCPA claims, legislatively reversing Owens v. DRS Auto. Fantomworks, Inc., 288 Va. 489 (2014), which required proof that a plaintiff would not have entered the transaction but for the supplier’s misrepresentation.
- It included a retroactivity clause allowing plaintiffs to pursue pre-enactment conduct as a class action.
Governor’s tilt toward defendants
Rather than sign the bill, Spanberger proposed an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
- Class action damages under the VCPA would be limited to actual damages only — no statutory minimums and no trebling in class suits. The governor also removed the “per violation” language and the “declarative of existing law” clause.
- The reliance requirement from Owens would remain intact; the governor struck the “reliance not required” provision.
- Venue would be restricted exclusively to four courts: Richmond, Roanoke, Fairfax County and Norfolk.
- FRCP 56 would be adopted as the governing summary judgment standard in class actions — a significant departure from Virginia’s existing restrictive summary judgment practice under Va. Code § 8.01-420.
- The governor removed the retroactivity provision entirely.
The result: The General Assembly refused to adopt Spanberger’s substitute, leaving it up to the governor to adopt the bill as originally enrolled or to veto it. In announcing the veto, Spanberger said, “I support the General Assembly’s goal of providing a class action mechanism that can be used by plaintiffs in Virginia courts. I offered amendments to ensure that when Virginia adopts its first-ever class action procedure, we do so in a tailored and judicious way — building on longstanding, federal precedent while providing regional circuit courts an opportunity to develop expertise. The General Assembly did not accept these amendments.” Virginia now returns to the status quo with no class action statute. Both sides will have to wait for the next General Assembly session in January 2027 to debate the issue again.
McGuireWoods continues to monitor developments in this area. For questions, contact the authors.