OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Touchstone Research Group LLC (“Touchstone”) and “John Does 1-50 and Jane Does 1-50″ brought this action, primarily alleging violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 (the “Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. §552a, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq., against Defendants the U.S. Department of Defense; James Mattis, Secretary of Defense; Robert Wilkie, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Michael V. Sorrento, Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center; Peter A. Robinson, Chief of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Office; and the “United States of America.” Touchstone, a company that obtains veterans’ military records from government records facilities for a fee, alleges that Defendants have violated the Privacy Act and the APA by refusing to provide Touchstone with their customers’ military records or delaying Touchstone’s records requests. Presently before me is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), for failure to name all parties, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), for improper venue. (ECF 37).1 For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. I. Background A. Facts2 1. Government’s Maintenance of Veteran Military Records The United States government stores veterans’ military records at more than 60 government records facilities across the country. (Am. Comp. 28). All records prior to the “mid-1990s” are maintained primarily by the National Personnel Records Center (“NPRC”) and are available in hard copy. (Id.). Records from approximately the last 25 years are maintained by “the various military branches themselves” and can be accessed through an online database, the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (“DPRIS”). (Id.). A number of government records facilities also maintain “client service windows,” at which a veteran may appear in person and request his or her records directly at no charge.3 (Id. 29). These facilities include the NPRC, the Headquarters of the U.S. Marine Corps (“HQMC”), the Navy Personnel Command (“NPC”), and the Air Reserve Personnel Center (“ARPC”), which are not parties to this action. (Id.). Once the records are requested, the facility “is [] tasked with making that veteran’s request a priority” and must provide the records the same day or “very soon thereafter.” (Id. 29). 2. Touchstone’s Services Touchstone is a record-retrieval company offering a fee-based service to veterans to retrieve their military records from the government. (Id. 31). Touchstone asserts that it has worked with over 80,000 veterans, helping them to locate and to obtain their military records. (Id.). Touchstone provides each veteran or family member a three-page document to consider and sign. (Pl’s Reply, at 4). The document contains a “Limited Power of Attorney” set forth on the last page, whereby the individual veteran or family member grants to Touchstone “a Limited Power of Attorney for the sole purpose of obtaining my records.” (Id., Ex. 1). Touchstone explained that it has developed an online request form with “E-signature capability” which Touchstone’s customers can use to authorize a search request. (Id. 32). Touchstone has not explained whether this online request form is the same as the three-page document with a “Limited Power of Attorney” that Touchstone also described. Plaintiff has also developed and “made commercially available” what it calls a “VetRecs Card,” a “verifiable version of a veteran’s military separation documents.” (Id. 33). Touchstone does not explain how the online request form and the VetRecs Card are relevant to this action. Touchstone also acts as a “third-party verifier” of both hard-copy and electronic records. (Id. 30). Touchstone digitally signs and locks all retrieved electronic records and affixes a holographic seal with a “$25,000 authenticity guarantee” to all hardcopy records. (Id.). Touchstone asserts that these actions confirm that the records were received directly from a government records facility, and thus prevent individuals from tampering with or forging them. (Id.). According to Touchstone, because of this service, some “private employers,” including “overseas military contractors,” (all unnamed) require veteran applicants to retrieve their military records through Touchstone. (Id.). 3. Government Records Facilities Refuse to Accept Touchstone’s Requests According to Touchstone, in 2011, the Army Human Resources Command (“AHRC”) consolidated and moved its elements in different states to a new consolidated facility at Fort Knox, Kentucky. (Id. 35). Touchstone thereafter redirected its records requests to this facility. (Id.). Touchstone claims that while it previously received responses to “record requests for recent separations” from the NPRC, the AHRC, and other facilities “within hours,” (Id. 34), after the consolidation, the AHRC refused to accept requests submitted through Touchstone’s online request form. (Id. 36). Touchstone claims that “[a]ll other government military records facilities readily accept Touchstone’s veteran request forms.” (Id.). Touchstone states that it “asserted verbally and in writing to [the] AHRC that their facility is legally required to accept Touchstone’s requests.” (Id.). In response, the AHRC cited an internal “Command Policy,” but did not provide further legal support. (Id. 37). According to Touchstone, Defendant Robinson, then Chief of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, “vilif[ied]” Touchstone in an email dated May 21, 2012, by stating “ [i]t’s likely your company thrived by taking advantage of the uninformed veteran and the lazy federal employee.” (Id.). Defendant Robinson also allegedly reached out to Touchstone’s clients informing them that “this command does NOT do business with Touchstone [].” (Id. 38). Touchstone further alleges that beginning in late 2016, two other government facilities, HQMC and the NPC, which had previously returned Touchstone’s requests “within hours,” began returning Touchstone’s requests “within weeks or even months after submission.” (Id. 39). Touchstone alleges that these delays are the result of Defendants AHRC and Robinson contacting HQMC and NPC to direct them not to complete Touchstone’s requests. (Id.). Touchstone does not claim that any other record facilities have denied or intentionally delayed its record requests. 4. Touchstone’s Inability to Use DPRIS After the records facilities began denying or delaying Touchstone’s record requests, Touchstone sought access to DPRIS to retrieve the records electronically. (Id. 47). On April 5, 2017, Touchstone filled out the “online application located on the DPRIS website,” seeking access as a “designated representative of the veteran.”4 (Id. 47). Receiving no response, Plaintiff reached out to the DPRIS Help Desk and the Under Secretary of Defense on November 2, 2017 and November 29, 2017, respectively, to request a response to its online application. Yet, as of the filing date of this action, neither has responded. (Id.
