OMM Redaksiyası
The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday in a case that could determine how a nearly 40-year-old privacy law applies to users of modern websites, streaming platforms and other digital services.
The case, Salazar v. Paramount Global, concerns the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 to prevent video rental stores from disclosing customers’ viewing histories. Reuters reported that the justices will consider whether subscribers to a company’s non-video services are protected when it shares information about videos they watch online.
The dispute began in 2022, when Michael Salazar filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against “Paramount Global”, which owns “247Sports”, a website covering US college sports and recruitment.
Salazar had subscribed to a free newsletter from the site and watched videos while logged into “Facebook”. He alleged that “Paramount Global” used the “Facebook Pixel” tracking tool to send details of his viewing activity to the social media platform without his consent.
The information allegedly included the titles and web addresses of videos he watched, as well as his Facebook identification number, which could be used to identify him. The “Facebook Pixel” is a piece of code that websites can use to collect information about visitors and share it with advertising platforms.
Such tools are commonly used to measure advertising performance, monitor user activity and deliver targeted ads. Salazar says sharing his viewing history violated the VPPA, which restricts video providers from disclosing personally identifiable information about customers without their consent.
“Paramount Global” disputes that interpretation, arguing that a subscription to a sports newsletter does not make someone a protected consumer of audiovisual services. A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed the case, and the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld that decision in April 2025.
The appeals court found that the law protects people who rent, purchase or subscribe to audiovisual products or services, rather than anyone 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 readings in separate cases, creating a disagreement that led the Supreme Court to take up the matter.
Law written for video rental records
Congress passed the VPPA after the video rental history of Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee, was obtained and publicized during his 1987 confirmation process. The episode prompted concerns that viewing records could reveal sensitive information about people’s political beliefs, religious interests and personal lives.
The law bars video providers from knowingly disclosing information identifying customers and the specific videos they requested or obtained, subject to certain exceptions. It allows individuals to sue and seek damages of at least $2,500, as well as potential punitive damages and legal costs.
Congress amended the law in 2013 to update consent requirements for electronic services, but much of its original wording remains. The statute still refers to “video tape service providers”, even though video consumption has shifted from rental stores to websites, streaming platforms and mobile apps.
Salazar argues that the law’s definition of a consumer covers anyone who subscribes to goods or services from a video provider, even if the subscription itself is not video-related. His lawyers say Congress could have expressly limited the definition to audiovisual services but did not do so.
“Paramount Global” argues that the law should be interpreted in its original context, protecting customers involved in video-related transactions. Under its reading, a subscription to an unrelated service does not establish the customer relationship required to bring a privacy claim.
Potential impact on digital publishers and advertisers
Privacy advocates, technology companies and media organisations have weighed in. The Electronic Privacy Information Center and other privacy experts support Salazar’s broader interpretation, warning that a narrower reading could leave viewing histories exposed when companies combine video content with newsletters or other digital services.
“Meta Platforms”, which owns “Facebook”, and several media and business organisations have filed briefs supporting “Paramount Global”. Industry groups say a broader interpretation could expose websites to substantial financial liability and undermine advertising-supported business models. News organisations have also warned it could discourage free video content or force changes to online advertising and analytics practices.
A ruling for Salazar could allow more website users to sue over the disclosure of viewing histories, even if their subscriptions are not specifically for video content. A ruling for “Paramount Global” would support a narrower interpretation, limiting protection to consumers with a qualifying relationship involving audiovisual goods or services.
The case does not directly ask the justices to decide whether tracking tools are unlawful or whether “Paramount Global” 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 set an important boundary for privacy protections as written content, video, advertising and data collection increasingly overlap. A ruling is expected before the court’s current term concludes in 2027.
