Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Company

Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 132 F.4th 1110 (9th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 27, 2025 · No. 23-3882

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Paul Osheske’s putative class action against Silver Cinemas Acquisition Company under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The court held that selling tickets to and providing access to in-theater movie screenings does not constitute the rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded audiovisual materials by a covered video tape service provider, and that amendment would be futile.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
M. Margaret McKeown; Lucy H. Koh; Anthony D. Johnstone
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
March 27, 2025
Docket number
23-3882
Procedural posture
Appeal from the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of a putative class action alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Standard of review
De novo review of a decision granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Precedential value
Published Ninth Circuit opinion; precedential.
Parties
Paul Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Company, doing business as Landmark Theaters
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

statutory interpretationnoscitur a sociisplain meaning ruleconsumer protectionappellate procedure

Practice areas

consumer protectionprivacy lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a movie theater that sells tickets to and provides in-theater film screenings is a "video tape service provider" engaged in the rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials under the Video Privacy Protection Act.
  2. Whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

Holdings

  1. A movie theater that sells tickets to and provides access to in-theater film screenings is not engaged in the rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials and therefore is not a video tape service provider subject to the VPPA.
  2. Dismissal without leave to amend was proper because Osheske did not request leave to amend and the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.

Key quotations

Taken together, the phrase “rental, sale, or delivery” characterizes the exchange of a video product. It does not encompass the provision of shared access to film screenings. (132 F.4th at 1115)
Landmark does not deliver any “audio visual materials” to the customer in either its ticket sales or its in-theater experiences. (132 F.4th at 1116)

Factual background

Landmark operates movie theaters and a website through which users can view trailers, browse showtimes, and purchase movie tickets. Landmark used a Facebook pixel that transmitted information when a user purchased a ticket while logged into Facebook. After Osheske purchased a ticket, Landmark transmitted the film name, showing location, and Osheske's unique Facebook identification number to Facebook without his consent.

Procedural history

Osheske filed a putative class action alleging that Landmark disclosed movie-ticket purchase information and his Facebook identification number to Facebook. The district court granted Landmark's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…