Garza

facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. 1. Garza’s claim under section 1799.3 of the California Civil Code is dismissed. A movie theater operator like Alamo does not provide “video recording sales or rental services” because, as Garza acknowledges, Alamo neither sells nor rents movies to people who visit its theaters. 2. The Video Privacy Protection Act claim is dismissed because a movie theater operator like Alamo is not a “video tape service provider” under the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4). Again, Alamo does not rent or sell movies to moviegoers. Nor does it “deliver” movies to people who visit its theaters. “Delivery” usually refers to the act of “bringing” something to a particular person or place. See CFTC v. Monex Credit Co., 931 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)). But movie theaters do not “bring” movies to any person or place—people go to the movies, not the other way around. Garza offers two other ways of thinking about “delivery” under the statute, but neither works. She first defines “delivery” as the act of “sending something to an intended destination” (the same way a pitcher might…