(a)No person providing video recording sales or rental services shall disclose any personal information or the contents of any record, including sales or rental information, which is prepared or maintained by that person, to any person, other than the individual who is the subject of the record, without the written consent of that individual.
(b)This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1)To a disclosure to any person pursuant to a subpoena or court order.
(2)To a disclosure that is in response to the proper use of discovery in a pending civil action.
(3)To a disclosure to any person acting pursuant to a lawful search warrant.
(4)To a disclosure to a law enforcement agency when required for investigations of criminal activity, unless that disclosure is prohibited by law.
(5)To a disclosure to a taxing agency for purposes of tax administration.
(6)To a disclosure of names and addresses
only for commercial purposes.
(c)Any willful violation of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, which may be recovered in a civil action brought by the person who is the subject of the records.
(d)(1)Any person who willfully violates this section on three or more occasions in any six-month period shall, in addition, be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, which may be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, by any district attorney or city attorney, or by a city prosecutor in any city or city and county having a full-time city prosecutor, in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(2)If
the action is brought by the Attorney General, one-half of the penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered, and one-half to the General Fund. If the action is brought by a district attorney, the penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered. If the action is brought by a city attorney or city prosecutor, one-half of the penalty shall be paid to the treasurer of the city in which the judgment was entered, and one-half to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered.
(e)The penalty provided by this section is not an exclusive remedy, and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.
Notes of Decisions
Meghan Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 7× “§ 2710 , and California Civil Code § 1799.3. On behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated Netflix subscribers, Plaintiffs allege that Netflix violated these statutes by permitting certain disclosures about *1064 their viewing history to third parties— specifically,…”
Jones v. Starz Ent., LLC, 129 F.4th 1176 (9th Cir. 2025).
“” Jones initiated the dispute-resolution process in January 2023 by submitting a Demand for Arbitration Form to JAMS, alleging that Starz violated the Video Privacy Protection Act and California Civil Code § 1799.3 by disclosing her identity and the videos she watched to third-…”
Lee v. Plex, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 4× “, and California Civil Code § 1799.3. See Compl.”
Fan v. NBA Props. Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 2710 , and California Civil Code § 1799.3. The second amended 20 complaint (“SAC”) alleges that defendants sell blockchain video clips known as “Moments” on 21 www.”
Beagle v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
· cites it 2× “) Plaintiffs believe that Amazon’s 16 alleged disclosure of PII in this manner violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act 17 (“VPPA”), California Civil Code § 1799.3 (“section 1799.”
Trimboli v. FilmSupply, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2024).
“§ 2710 ); (2) the 7 California Video Privacy Protection Act ( Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3 ); and (3) California’s Unfair 8 Competition Law ( Cal.”
Trimboli v. FilmSupply, LLC (N.D. Tex. 2024).
“§ 2710 ); (2) the 7 California Video Privacy Protection Act ( Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3 ); and (3) California’s Unfair 8 Competition Law ( Cal.”
Hoang To v. Directtou, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2025).
“19 These actions, plaintiffs assert, were in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act 20 (“VPPA”) (TAC ¶¶ 86–96), California Civil Code § 1799.3 (TAC ¶¶ 97–102), and California’s 21 Unfair Competition Law pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code § 17200 22…”
Cal. Civil Code § 1799.3(a): 1 case
Meghan Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2015).
“§ 2710 , and California Civil Code § 1799.3. On behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated Netflix subscribers, Plaintiffs allege that Netflix violated these statutes by permitting certain disclosures about *1064 their viewing history to third parties— specifically,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.