Full Breakdown
Supreme Court to weigh Video Privacy Act’s reach in the internet age
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Issue: Applying the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act to online video tracking
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on October 14 in *Salazar v. Paramount Global*, a case that asks whether the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)—enacted after a 1980s scandal involving Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork—covers the modern practice of sharing video-viewing data with third-party advertisers.
Background & Context
In 1988 Congress passed the VPPA after the *Washington City Paper* published a list of movies rented by Bork. The statute bars a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing “personally identifiable information” about any consumer of such a provider.
Case Details
- Plaintiff: Michael Salazar, a California resident.
- Conduct: In 2022 Salazar subscribed to a free email newsletter from 247Sports.com, a Paramount-owned site covering college-sports recruiting. While logged into Facebook, he watched videos on the site.
- Data sharing: Paramount placed a tracking pixel on the page, which transmitted Salazar’s Facebook ID and video-viewing history to Meta without his consent.
- Legal claim: Salazar filed a class-action suit in Nashville, seeking the VPPA’s maximum statutory damages of $2,500 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
- Lower-court rulings: U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson dismissed the case, finding that Salazar was not a “consumer” because the newsletter did not constitute “audio-visual content.” The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that reasoning.
Legal Arguments
- Salazar argues that “goods or services” includes the free newsletter, making him a protected consumer.
- Paramount’s position: Paramount contends that “goods or services” must be read in context with “video tape service provider,” limiting the term to actual audiovisual rentals or purchases. The company warns that extending the VPPA to routine tracking would create an “unworkable internet-privacy regime.”
- Judicial framing: Judge John Nalbandian, writing for the majority, asks whether the phrase is limited to audio-visual content or can extend to any product a provider offers. He leans toward a narrower reading, emphasizing the statute’s focus on video-tape services.
Official Statements & Responses
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): Lawyer Sara Geoghegan filed a brief supporting Salazar, arguing that “we don’t have a general, federal comprehensive privacy law. But we do have this specific law that protects video viewing habits.”
Criticism & Opposition
Privacy advocates cite a 2023 Pew Research Center survey showing that more than seven in ten Americans feel they have little or no control over how companies use their data. They argue that, absent a comprehensive federal privacy framework, the VPPA remains a vital safeguard for video-viewing information.
Data & Statistics
- Statutory damages: The VPPA caps damages at $2,500 per violation.
- Public sentiment: Over 70 % of Americans surveyed in 2023 expressed concern about lack of control over personal data.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The dispute hinges on the statutory phrase “goods or services.”
- Broad interpretation: Salazar points to the lone remaining Blockbuster store in Bend, Oregon, which sells candles, sunglasses, and dog bandanas alongside movies, arguing that any purchase from a video-tape provider creates a consumer relationship.
- Narrow interpretation: Courts have so far limited the definition to actual audio-visual rentals, holding that a free newsletter does not satisfy the “consumer” requirement.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court’s oral arguments on October 14 will determine whether the VPPA’s privacy shield extends to digital video platforms and their data-sharing practices, potentially reshaping the targeted-advertising ecosystem that underpins much of today’s free online content.