The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on a significant case concerning the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) of 1988, specifically whether Paramount Global breached this law by disclosing a user’s viewing history to Facebook. The case, titled Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, raises critical questions about the interpretation of the term ‘consumer’ under the VPPA.
Background of the Case
Michael Salazar initiated a class action lawsuit against Paramount in 2022, claiming that the company violated the VPPA by sharing his personally identifiable information with Facebook without his consent. Salazar had subscribed to an online newsletter via 247Sports.com, a Paramount-owned site, and used it to watch videos while logged into his Facebook account. According to Salazar’s petition, this led to Paramount automatically disclosing his Facebook ID and viewing history to Facebook, which was then utilized for targeted advertising, benefiting both companies financially.
Legal Definitions at Stake
The VPPA defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The law’s language suggests it may apply to a broader range of services than just traditional video rentals. The Supreme Court’s task is to clarify whether ‘goods or services’ refers exclusively to audiovisual content or encompasses all offerings from a video tape service provider.
Previous Court Rulings
Salazar’s case was initially dismissed by a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, and this decision was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The appellate court ruled that the VPPA was designed to protect personal privacy regarding the rental or purchase of audiovisual materials, and since Salazar did not subscribe to such materials, he was not considered a consumer under the Act.
Circuit Split and Supreme Court’s Decision
Salazar’s petition highlights a division among circuit courts regarding the interpretation of ‘consumer.’ While the 6th Circuit ruled against him, the 7th Circuit and the 2nd Circuit have taken a broader view, suggesting that any purchase or subscription qualifies a person as a consumer. This inconsistency among courts has made the case ripe for Supreme Court review. Paramount has argued against the case being heard, asserting that Salazar’s claims would not hold in other circuits and that 247Sports does not qualify as a video tape service provider.
Despite Paramount’s objections, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which is expected to be scheduled for oral arguments in the 2026-27 term.
This article was produced by NeonPulse.today using human and AI-assisted editorial processes, based on publicly available information. Content may be edited for clarity and style.
