CITY OF RENO V. NETFLIX, INC., 52 F.4th 874

In 2007 Nevada enacted the Video Service Law (VSL), replacing local cable franchises with state-issued certificates of authority and regulating video service providers.
The VSL allows local governments to manage rights-of-way and to impose franchise fees up to 5% of gross annual revenue from local subscribers.
The VSL assigns enforcement: the Nevada Attorney General must commence actions to recover disputed franchise-fee underpayments on behalf of local governments, and the Consumer’s Advocate may file enforcement actions through the Office of the Attorney General.
The City of Reno sued Netflix and Hulu seeking class relief (Nevada cities/counties), alleging they are video service providers required to obtain certificates and pay franchise fees; Reno sought damages and a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA).
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) (holding alternatively that defendants were not "video service providers" and that Reno lacked a private right of action under the VSL); Reno appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the VSL provides no private right of action under Nevada law and the DJA does not create an independent cause of action to obtain affirmative relief where none otherwise exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the VSL create a private right of action for local governments to recover unpaid franchise fees?	Reno: the statute permits cities to sue (implied right).	Netflix/Hulu: no private right; enforcement is vested in state officials/agency.	No; under Baldonado factors, Nevada law precludes an implied private right—enforcement allocated to state AG/Consumer’s Advocate.
Can Reno obtain affirmative declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act absent an independent cause of action?	Reno: DJA permits a declaration that defendants are covered by the VSL.	Netflix/Hulu: DJA is procedural only and does not create substantive causes of action.	No; DJA presupposes a judicially remediable right and cannot supply an affirmative cause where none exists.
Are Netflix and Hulu "video service providers" under the VSL?	Reno: alleges they provide video service under the statute.	Defendants: argue they do not meet the VSL definition.	Not reached on the merits—court resolved case on lack of VSL private right and DJA limitations and affirmed dismissal.

Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008) (Nevada test for implying a private right of action and factors to consider)
Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666 (1960) (Declaratory Judgment Act presupposes existence of a judicially remediable right)
Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo, 667 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2012) (DJA does not create an independent cause of action)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Fam. Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014) (DJA is procedural; substantive rights unchanged)
Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. v. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc., 771 F.3d 632 (9th Cir. 2014) (declaratory relief evaluated by examining both who can assert rights and who has obligations under the law)
Harvey v. Nevada, 473 P.3d 1015 (Nev. 2020) (statutory interpretation principle: expression of one thing may imply exclusion of another)