- US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case on whether subscribers to non-video services qualify for protection under a 1988 federal video privacy law
- Dispute arose after a sports newsletter subscriber accused Paramount of sharing his video-viewing history with Facebook through an online tracking tool
- Expected later this year, a ruling could determine who can sue over the sharing of viewing data, with implications for digital publishers, streaming platforms and targeted advertising
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in a case that could determine how far a nearly 40-year-old federal privacy law extends to users of modern websites, streaming platforms and other digital services.
The case, Salazar v. Paramount Global, centers on the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a 1988 law originally designed to prevent video rental stores from disclosing customers’ viewing histories.
At issue is whether people who subscribe to a company’s non-video services, such as email newsletters, are protected when that company shares information about the videos they watch online.
The outcome could affect how media and technology companies collect and share viewing data, potentially exposing them to lawsuits over practices commonly used in targeted advertising.
What is the case about?
The dispute began in 2022 when Michael Salazar filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Paramount Global, the owner of 247Sports, a website covering US college sports and recruitment.
Salazar subscribed to a free newsletter from the website and watched videos while logged into his Facebook account.
He alleged that Paramount used a tracking tool known as the Facebook Pixel to send information about his viewing activity to the US social media platform without his consent.
The information allegedly included the titles and web addresses of videos he watched, along with his Facebook identification number, which could be used to identify him.
Pixel is a small piece of computer code that websites can install to collect information about visitors’ activities and share it with advertising platforms.
Such tools are widely used to measure advertising performance, track user behavior, and deliver targeted advertisements.
Salazar argued that disclosing his viewing history violated the VPPA, which restricts video providers from sharing personally identifiable information about their customers without consent.
Paramount disputed his interpretation of the law, arguing that subscribing to a sports newsletter did not make him a protected consumer of audiovisual services.
A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed his lawsuit, and the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld that ruling in April 2025.
The appeals court concluded that the law protects people who rent, purchase or subscribe to audiovisual products or services, not everyone who subscribes to an unrelated offering from a company that also provides videos.
Federal appeals courts in New York and Chicago had previously adopted broader interpretations of the law in separate cases, creating a legal disagreement that prompted the Supreme Court to intervene.
Why does a 1988 law matter today?
Congress enacted the VPPA after the video rental history of Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee, was obtained and publicized during his controversial 1987 confirmation process.
The episode raised concerns that viewing records could expose sensitive information about people’s political beliefs, religious interests and personal lives.
The resulting law prohibited video providers from knowingly disclosing information identifying customers and the specific videos they requested or obtained, subject to certain exceptions.
It also allowed individuals to sue over violations and seek damages of at least $2,500, along with potential punitive damages and legal costs.
Although Congress amended the law in 2013 to update consent requirements for electronic services, much of its original language remains unchanged.
The statute still refers to “video tape service providers,” even as video consumption has shifted from physical rental stores to websites, streaming platforms and mobile applications.
That shift has created disputes over whether modern online users qualify for protections originally written for people renting or purchasing videotapes.
What are the competing arguments?
Salazar argues that the law’s definition of a consumer includes anyone subscribing to goods or services from a video provider, regardless of whether the subscription itself involves videos.
His lawyers maintain that Congress could have explicitly limited the definition to audiovisual services but did not do so.
Paramount argues that the law must be read in its original context, which was to protect customers engaged in video-related transactions.
Under its interpretation, subscribing to an unrelated service does not establish the customer relationship necessary to bring a privacy claim.
The case has attracted attention from privacy advocates and major technology and media organizations.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center and other privacy experts support Salazar’s broader interpretation, warning that a narrower definition could leave users’ viewing histories vulnerable when companies bundle video content with newsletters and other digital services.
Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, and several media and business organizations have filed briefs supporting Paramount.
Industry groups argue that expanding the law could expose websites to substantial financial liability and undermine advertising-supported business models.
News organizations have also warned that a broader interpretation could discourage the use of free video content or force changes to digital advertising and analytics practices.
What could the Supreme Court decide?
A ruling favoring Salazar could allow more website users to bring lawsuits over disclosures of their viewing histories, even when their subscriptions are not specifically for video content.
A ruling favoring Paramount would reinforce a narrower interpretation, limiting protection to consumers who have a qualifying relationship involving audiovisual goods or services.
However, the case does not directly ask the justices to decide whether tracking tools themselves are unlawful or whether Paramount ultimately violated the VPPA.
Those questions involve separate legal requirements, including whether the information disclosed identifies viewers and their video activity.
The Supreme Court’s decision could nevertheless establish an important boundary for privacy protections in an online environment where written content, video, advertising and data collection are increasingly interconnected.
A ruling is expected before the court’s current term concludes in 2027.
