With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 2701(c)(1), or “by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user,” id. § 2701(c)(2). The district court dismissed on the ground that NetGate had authorized defendants’ access. It held that this consent was not coerced, because the subpoena itself informed NetGate of its right to object. Plaintiffs contend that NetGate’s authorization was nonetheless invalid because the subpoena was patently unlawful. Their claim turns on the meaning of the word “authorized” in section 2701. We have previously reserved judgment on this question, see Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868, 879 n. 8 (9th Cir.2002), while other circuits have considered related issues, see, e.g., EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 582 n. 10 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504, 510

A: holding that an error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding access might be unauthorized under the computer fraud and abuse act if it is not in line with the reasonable expectations of the party granting permission internal quotation marks omitted
C: recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted
D: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
B.