The Supreme Court agreed Monday to resolve a pressing question at the intersection of privacy law and digital advertising: Does a statute passed to protect video rental records in 1988 extend to websites that share user data with Meta’s tracking technology?
A Blockbuster-era statute meets the digital age as justices weigh data privacy protections
The Case at Hand
Michael Salazar sued Paramount Global, alleging the company violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing his personal information to Facebook without consent. Salazar had subscribed to a free email newsletter on 247Sports.com, a Paramount-owned website, and viewed video clips on the platform. The site used Meta Pixel, a tracking tool that allegedly transmitted Salazar’s Facebook ID and browsing behavior to Facebook for targeted advertising purposes.
The central legal question is deceptively simple: What makes someone a “consumer” under the VPPA? Must they specifically rent, purchase, or subscribe to video content? Or does signing up for any service on a video-hosting website—like a free newsletter—trigger the law’s protections?
Origins of the Law
Congress enacted the VPPA in response to a notorious incident during Judge Robert Bork’s contentious 1987 Supreme Court nomination. A journalist obtained and published Bork’s video rental history from his local store, sparking outrage over the invasion of privacy. The resulting statute prohibits “video tape service providers” from disclosing “personally identifiable information” about customers who rent, purchase, or subscribe to their services.
The law was designed for an era of physical video rentals, but its language has proven surprisingly durable—and contentious—in the streaming age.
The Circuit Split
Last April, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Paramount’s favor, determining that Salazar was not a “consumer” under the VPPA. The majority held that he had only subscribed to a newsletter, not to “goods or services in the nature of video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” The court reasoned that while “goods or services” appears broad in isolation, the statutory context and definition of “video tape service provider” necessarily limit its scope.
Judge Helene White dissented sharply, arguing the majority had improperly rewritten the statute by adding restrictions Congress never included in the plain text.
Other federal appellate courts have reached varying conclusions on similar claims. Some have dismissed pixel-based tracking cases on different grounds, holding that shared computer code doesn’t constitute “personally identifiable information” under the VPPA. This divergence among circuits makes Supreme Court review particularly important for establishing uniform standards.
The Arguments
Paramount characterizes the VPPA as a “Blockbuster-era statute” designed exclusively to protect video rental records, not to regulate modern internet advertising. The company argues that 247Sports is neither a video rental store nor a streaming service, and therefore cannot be a “video tape service provider.” Moreover, Paramount contends Salazar isn’t a “consumer” because he signed up for a free email newsletter rather than actually renting, purchasing, or subscribing to video content.
Salazar’s position is that the statutory language is clear: anyone who subscribes to services from a provider that offers video content should receive VPPA protections, regardless of whether they subscribe specifically to video services. His lawyers argue that allowing companies to evade the law by offering ancillary services like newsletters would gut the statute’s privacy protections in the digital age.
Broader Privacy Context
The case arrives amid escalating global concern over data privacy and the practices of major technology companies. In December, Austria’s Supreme Court ruled that Meta’s personalized advertising model violates EU data protection law. Last February, Canada opened an investigation into whether X (formerly Twitter) violates Canadian privacy laws through its data collection practices for AI training.
In the United States, comprehensive federal privacy legislation remains elusive despite years of proposals. The VPPA, along with sector-specific laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), represents a patchwork approach to privacy protection.
What’s at Stake
The Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for how companies use tracking pixels and similar technologies. If the Court sides with Salazar, websites that host video content could face substantial liability for sharing user data with advertising platforms, potentially forcing a reassessment of common digital marketing practices.
If Paramount prevails, it may effectively limit the VPPA’s application to traditional video rental and streaming services, leaving broader questions about tracking technology to be addressed through new legislation or other legal frameworks.
The case also tests a fundamental question in statutory interpretation: When technology evolves beyond what lawmakers could have imagined, should courts interpret old statutes expansively to address new problems, or narrowly to avoid extending laws beyond their intended scope?
The Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the coming months, with a decision likely by the end of the current term in June 2026.
The Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, imposes penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, plus attorney’s fees, making it an attractive vehicle for class-action lawsuits when companies are alleged to have shared data about thousands or millions of users.
