On September 4, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Rodriguez v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, affirming the US District Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of Daniel Rodriguez's amended complaint alleging a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) (No. 12-17391, (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015)). Consistent with holdings from the US Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, the Ninth Circuit held that the VPPA does not provide a private right of action for alleged violations of its retention provisions.

Rodriguez brought suit against Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC and Sony Network Entertainment International, LLC (collectively Sony) alleging Sony violated the VPPA by:

Sony sought dismissal of Rodriguez's complaint on the basis that he lacked standing and did not suffer an injury-in-fact. The district court dismissed Rodriguez's claims with prejudice, finding that the VPPA:

Despite the dismissal with prejudice, Rodriguez filed an amended complaint. Rodriguez claimed that the unlawful retention was a violation of his privacy rights and that he suffered economic damages in the form of being overcharged for movie and video game purchases where a portion of the price was intended to pay for Sony's costs incurred to timely destroy customer information. The district court dismissed the amended complaint on Sony's motion.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that although this was a matter of first impression for its circuit, both the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have rejected arguments similar to Rodriguez's. In particular, the Seventh Circuit rejected a plaintiff's attempt to pursue an unlawful retention claim against Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, a video rental service (Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 672 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2012)), holding that Section 2710(c) of the VPPA creates a private right of action for the unlawful disclosure of personal information but not for unlawful retention (18 U.S.C.A. § 2710(c)). The Seventh Circuit reached this conclusion based on the structure of the statute and further because it would be illogical to provide a private right of action for unlawful retention because a plaintiff would have no injury-in-fact unless the personal information was also disclosed (see also Daniel v. Cantrell, 375 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2004)).

The Ninth Circuit agreed with its sister courts and further reasoned:

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Rodriguez's claims that Sony violated the VPPA when it shared his personal information between Sony entities. Following the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit agreed that intra-corporate disclosures are not unauthorized disclosures under the VPPA.