US Supreme Court Weighs Expansion of Digital Video Privacy Protections

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 14 to determine whether a 1988 privacy law written for video rental stores applies to modern websites that share user data with Facebook. The case, Salazar v. Paramount Global, tests whether a free newsletter subscriber qualifies as a protected consumer.[1][2]

If the Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the decision could upend how digital publishers and retailers use standard analytics tools. The justices are weighing whether the Video Privacy Protection Act restricts the use of tracking pixels that transmit viewing habits to advertisers without explicit consent.[1][4]

The litigation began in September 2022 when Michael Salazar filed a class-action lawsuit against Paramount Global. Salazar had signed up for a free email newsletter from 247Sports, a college sports recruiting website owned by the media conglomerate.[1][4]

The origin of the dispute

Salazar alleged that while he was logged into his Facebook account, he watched publicly available videos on the 247Sports website. He claimed that Paramount had embedded a Meta tracking pixel on the site, which automatically sent the video URLs and his Facebook ID back to the social network.[1][4]

Because the data transfer occurred without his knowledge or consent, Salazar argued that Paramount violated federal privacy protections. He sought statutory damages, which under the VPPA are set at $2,500 per violation, a figure that could quickly reach billions in a class-action scenario.[1][5]

The Meta Pixel is a ubiquitous piece of code that website operators embed in their pages to track visitor behavior and measure advertising effectiveness. When a user interacts with a site, the pixel logs the activity and matches it against Meta's vast database of logged-in users.[1][2]

In the context of video content, the pixel can record exactly which clip a user clicked and link that specific media consumption directly to their real identity. Privacy advocates argue this invisible data exchange is functionally identical to a video clerk handing a customer's rental history to a third-party marketer.[2][5]

The circuit split

Congress passed the VPPA in 1988 following a high-profile privacy scandal during the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert Bork. A journalist had convinced a video store clerk to hand over Bork's rental history, prompting lawmakers to swiftly criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of video consumption records.[2][5]

The statute prohibits any video tape service provider from knowingly sharing personally identifiable information about a consumer. The law was updated in 2012 to accommodate digital streaming services like Netflix, allowing companies to obtain electronic consent, but the core definition of a protected consumer remained unchanged.[4][5]

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in early 2026 to resolve a deepening divide among federal appellate courts. The core legal dispute hinges on three words in the VPPA, which defines a consumer as any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services.[4][5]

In April 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Salazar's lawsuit, ruling that the phrase requires a user to subscribe specifically to audiovisual goods. Because Salazar only signed up for a text-based newsletter, the appellate panel concluded he did not meet the statutory definition of a consumer.[1][4]

Oral arguments and judicial skepticism

Other appellate courts have adopted a much broader reading of the decades-old text. The Second and Seventh Circuits have previously ruled that subscribing to any good or service from a company that also provides video content is sufficient to trigger the law's strict privacy protections.[3][4]

During the October 14 hearing, several justices appeared skeptical of Paramount's attempt to narrow the statute's scope. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the law explicitly says "goods or services" without adding the word "audiovisual," suggesting that the plaintiff's broad interpretation aligns with a natural reading of the text.[1][3]

Kagan also dismissed the media industry's concerns about the operational burden of compliance. She noted that websites have two simple choices: they can either implement mechanisms to obtain explicit user consent, or they can "stop selling people's private information" to third-party advertisers.[1]

Paramount's attorney, Paul Clement, warned the justices that ruling for Salazar would transform a narrow video rental law into a sweeping internet privacy regime. He argued that Congress never intended the VPPA to govern free web content, and that a broad ruling would trigger a massive wave of opportunistic litigation.[1][2]

Industry fallout and future impact

Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed some of the industry's concerns, questioning whether it was appropriate to repurpose a 1988 video law to regulate modern web advertising. He suggested that a ruling against Paramount would inevitably lead to websites placing all video content behind aggressive, over-broad consent pop-ups.[1]

A decision is expected by the summer of 2027, and the stakes extend far beyond traditional media companies. "The Supreme Court's decision in Salazar v. Paramount Global will affect the privacy rights of millions of people across the country," Salazar's lawyer, Joshua I. Hammack, told CNET.[2]

Retailers, sports leagues, and independent publishers that host incidental video clips alongside standard tracking tools are closely watching the outcome, fearing massive financial exposure. If the Supreme Court sides with Salazar, the internet's frictionless video experience could fundamentally change.[1][2]

Legal experts anticipate that websites would be forced to deploy strict consent gates before allowing any video to play. This shift would fundamentally alter the digital advertising ecosystem that currently subsidizes free content, forcing a reckoning over how user data is monetized.[1][2]