VPPA Privacy Protections at Stake as Supreme Court Reconsiders Who Qualifies as a Consumer

Know what’s on your site before a plaintiff’s firm does

A free privacy audit shows which cookies, pixels and trackers are running — and which ones commonly appear in privacy claims.

Get My Free Audit

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could substantially expand the number of Americans eligible to sue businesses under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). At issue is a deceptively simple question: Does someone become a protected consumer by signing up for a free email newsletter from a company that also provides videos?

If the justices answer yes, the consequences could extend well beyond streaming services and entertainment companies. News publishers, sports websites, retailers, educational platforms and businesses that offer prerecorded video content alongside free memberships or newsletters could face a broader pool of potential plaintiffs in lawsuits involving Meta Pixel and other website tracking technologies.

The case, Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459, was argued before the Supreme Court on October 14, 2026. As of October 30, the Court has not issued its decision.

The justices are examining the meaning of the word “consumer” in a federal privacy law enacted in 1988, decades before online advertising pixels, behavioral targeting and modern digital subscription models existed. The eventual decision could determine whether businesses can defeat certain VPPA claims because a website visitor subscribed only to a non-video service, or whether that person qualifies for protection regardless of what they subscribed to.

What Is Considered a Consumer Under the VPPA?

The Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.”

Those words create three potential categories of protected consumers: renters, purchasers and subscribers. The law does not expressly require a subscription payment, and its definition does not explicitly state that the goods or services must themselves be audiovisual.

The dispute concerns how to interpret the relationship between the subscriber and the video provider. Consider a person who registers for a free sports newsletter, watches an interview on the publisher’s website and has information about that viewing activity allegedly transmitted to Meta through an advertising pixel.

Under a narrow interpretation, the newsletter subscriber might not qualify for VPPA protection because the newsletter is not an audiovisual service. Under a broader interpretation, the newsletter creates the required subscriber relationship with the video provider, even though the subscription itself involves written content.

Both interpretations have found support in federal appellate courts, creating the disagreement now before the Supreme Court.

Why Salazar v. Paramount Global Reached the Supreme Court

Michael Salazar subscribed to an electronic newsletter from 247Sports.com, a college sports website operated by Paramount Global. He alleged that while he was logged into Facebook and watched videos on the website, tracking technology disclosed his Facebook identifier and information about the videos he viewed to Facebook without his consent.

Salazar filed a proposed class action alleging violations of the VPPA. Paramount disputed whether he qualified as a consumer under the statute.

The federal district court dismissed his complaint on the basis that his subscription to a sports newsletter did not qualify him as a consumer of audiovisual goods or services. In April 2025, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

That result conflicted with another case brought by the same plaintiff against the National Basketball Association.

In Salazar v. National Basketball Association, decided October 15, 2024, the Second Circuit concluded that a free NBA newsletter subscription could establish consumer status under the VPPA. The court reasoned that the statutory phrase “goods or services” was not restricted to audiovisual offerings.

The Second Circuit also found that providing personal information in exchange for recurring newsletter delivery could establish a subscriber relationship. It reversed the dismissal but did not decide that the NBA was ultimately liable for unlawful disclosures.

The Sixth Circuit took the opposite approach in the Paramount case, construing consumer status more narrowly in relation to audiovisual goods or services.

The Supreme Court granted review on January 26, 2026, to resolve whether the VPPA’s reference to goods or services includes everything offered by a qualifying video provider or only that provider’s audiovisual goods and services.

The Supreme Court Could Adopt a Broad Consumer Definition Favoring Plaintiffs

The most consequential outcome for privacy plaintiffs would be a Supreme Court ruling that a person who subscribes to any qualifying good or service from a video tape service provider is a consumer under the VPPA, even when the subscription has no direct relationship to video content.

Under that interpretation, a free newsletter subscription could establish consumer status. A plaintiff would not necessarily need a paid streaming account or a subscription specifically marketed as a video service.

That distinction matters because many websites combine prerecorded videos with entirely separate user relationships. A newspaper might maintain an email newsletter while hosting video interviews. A sports publisher might offer game highlights and recruiting videos alongside written articles. A business might allow visitors to register for informational updates while displaying prerecorded demonstrations and webinars.

If a qualifying video provider also discloses information identifying a subscriber’s specific viewing activity to a third party without legally sufficient consent, a broader consumer definition could eliminate an important defense against a VPPA claim.

It would not establish that every person who visits a website or watches a video is a subscriber. Nor would it automatically establish that every website containing a video is a video tape service provider. Those questions involve additional statutory language and separate factual issues.

What the Justices Examined During the October 14 Oral Arguments

During oral arguments, the justices explored the statutory text, the historical purpose of the VPPA and the practical consequences of treating subscribers to non-video services as protected consumers.

Salazar’s attorney, Joshua Hammack, argued that Congress deliberately used broad language when defining consumers. His position was that the law identifies the type of business subject to the statute separately from the type of relationship that establishes consumer protection.

Paramount’s attorney, Paul Clement, defended a narrower interpretation that connects the consumer relationship to audiovisual goods or services. Under that reading, an individual cannot obtain VPPA consumer status merely by subscribing to an unrelated offering from a company that also distributes videos.

One line of questioning concerned whether the statute’s privacy protection should depend on the particular item a person purchased or subscribed to, even where the alleged disclosure concerned that person’s video-viewing history. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explored the implications of distinguishing a customer who obtains video services from someone who has another commercial relationship with the same provider.

The argument exposed a central tension. A narrow interpretation can limit liability to relationships involving audiovisual products, while a broad interpretation gives effect to the statute’s unqualified reference to goods or services from a video provider.

The Court’s questions should not be treated as a prediction of the final vote. The justices could adopt either party’s interpretation, develop a narrower rationale or leave related questions about what constitutes a subscription unresolved.

The official Supreme Court oral argument transcript provides the full exchange.

Federal Appeals Courts Have Already Expanded VPPA Consumer Protections

The conflict is not confined to the Second and Sixth Circuits.

In Gardner v. Me-TV, decided March 28, 2025, the Seventh Circuit addressed whether users who supplied information such as an email address and ZIP code in exchange for personalized website services could qualify as consumers.

The court concluded that payment was not required to create a subscription. It reversed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and allowed the litigation to proceed.

Taken together, the Second and Seventh Circuit decisions illustrate why free digital memberships have become important in VPPA litigation. A company may regard a newsletter registration as a marketing relationship, while a plaintiff may characterize that same relationship as a subscription protected by federal video privacy law.

That does not mean these appellate decisions established liability for every alleged tracking disclosure. They addressed specific legal and pleading questions. Plaintiffs still must prove the other elements of their claims.

Who Could Qualify as a VPPA Consumer After the Supreme Court Rules?

The following examples show how different online relationships could be evaluated. They are illustrative, not definitive legal classifications.

Website activity	Potential VPPA treatment
Paying for a streaming video subscription	A conventional example of a qualifying video-related consumer relationship.
Creating an account for access to a video library	May establish a subscription, depending on the service and facts.
Subscribing to a free newsletter from a video provider	The central dispute in Salazar v. Paramount; potentially covered under a broad ruling.
Registering for recurring non-video services from a video provider	Potentially covered under a broad interpretation, if a genuine subscriber relationship exists.
Watching a video without registering or subscribing	Viewing alone does not automatically establish subscriber status.
Accepting cookies while visiting a website	Cookie acceptance by itself does not necessarily create a qualifying subscription.

One important issue is whether a company is actually a video tape service provider within the meaning of the statute. The VPPA refers to businesses involved in the rental, sale or delivery of prerecorded videocassettes or similar audiovisual materials. Courts have considered how that wording applies to internet video delivery, but a website does not automatically fall under the statute solely because it embeds a video.

Why a Plaintiff-Friendly VPPA Decision Could Increase Meta Pixel Lawsuits

The VPPA has become a recurring basis for lawsuits alleging that websites disclosed video-viewing information through advertising and analytics technologies.

Meta Pixel is particularly prominent in this litigation because it can transmit website activity to Meta, depending on how the technology is configured. The information transmitted may include page URLs, event names, browser identifiers and other data associated with a visitor’s session.

In some configurations, a video-related event may also transmit the name or URL of specific video content. Plaintiffs have alleged that these transmissions, when linked to identifiers such as a Facebook ID, disclose personally identifiable video-viewing information within the meaning of the VPPA.

Whether a particular transmission satisfies that standard depends on the data disclosed, the receiving party’s ability to identify the viewer, the applicable law and the specific circumstances.

A broad Supreme Court ruling would not resolve every one of those questions. It could, however, affect the first stage of many lawsuits: whether the plaintiff has a qualifying consumer relationship with the defendant.

Removing that obstacle could allow more cases to proceed to disputes about the information actually transmitted, consent, the provider’s knowledge and potential class certification.

Could Ordinary Website Analytics Trigger the VPPA?

Not every analytics transmission is a VPPA violation. The statute concerns knowing disclosures of personally identifiable information about protected consumers by covered providers, subject to statutory exceptions.

There is a significant difference between a website recording an aggregate video-play count and a website sending a third party a specific video title alongside an identifier that could be associated with an individual.

Website operators should pay particular attention to the combination of video-viewing events, identifiers and third-party destinations.

For example, a tracking request containing a video title, a video-page URL and a persistent identifier may present a different legal question from a generic pageview event that does not disclose what video, if any, a person requested or watched.

It is also necessary to distinguish video privacy questions from broader compliance obligations under state privacy laws and other federal statutes. A tracking implementation may implicate consumer privacy requirements without necessarily violating the VPPA.

VPPA Statutory Damages Could Make Expanded Consumer Status Financially Significant

The VPPA provides a private civil remedy. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c), an aggrieved person may seek actual damages, subject to a statutory minimum of $2,500, along with potential punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, litigation costs and appropriate equitable relief.

That statutory damages provision creates substantial potential exposure in cases involving large numbers of website users.

For illustration, 100,000 qualifying plaintiffs multiplied by $2,500 would produce $250 million in theoretical statutory damages if each were entitled to that amount. This is not a prediction of an actual judgment or settlement. Recoverability depends on liability, available defenses, the proper treatment of claims, class certification and other legal issues.

The potential scale helps explain why consumer status matters so much. A narrower definition can exclude certain newsletter or membership users before litigation reaches more expensive factual disputes. A broader definition could increase the number of people potentially eligible to assert claims.

Three Possible Supreme Court Outcomes

1. The Court Adopts the Broad Interpretation

The Court could hold that subscribers to non-audiovisual goods or services offered by a qualifying video provider fall within the VPPA’s consumer definition.

This would favor plaintiffs who registered for newsletters, memberships or similar recurring services but did not purchase video products. It would also reject the audiovisual-subscription limitation that supported the dismissal of Salazar’s Paramount lawsuit.

Such a ruling could increase litigation exposure for qualifying video providers using third-party tracking technologies, although plaintiffs would still have to establish unlawful disclosure and satisfy the other statutory requirements.

2. The Court Adopts Paramount’s Narrow Interpretation

The Court could conclude that the statutory definition requires a relationship involving audiovisual goods or services.

That outcome would favor defendants facing claims based solely on non-video newsletter subscriptions or other unrelated registrations. It could provide a clearer basis for dismissing those claims.

Businesses would still face VPPA exposure for qualifying video subscribers, purchasers and renters, including situations where their viewing information was allegedly disclosed without valid consent.

3. The Court Issues a More Limited Decision

The justices could issue a decision that addresses the relationship between subscriptions and audiovisual services while leaving uncertainty about particular kinds of free memberships, informal registrations or other digital user relationships.

For example, the Court could resolve whether goods or services must be audiovisual without exhaustively defining what constitutes a subscriber. That would leave lower courts to address additional factual and legal distinctions.

A limited ruling could therefore resolve the principal circuit split while leaving significant room for further VPPA litigation.

What Businesses Should Review Before the Supreme Court Decides

Businesses do not need to predict the Supreme Court’s decision to identify potential video privacy exposure. They can examine their current tracking environment and determine whether their websites transmit video-related information to third parties.

The first step is to identify prerecorded video content across the website and determine whether the company could qualify as a video tape service provider. Particular attention should go to sites that combine video libraries or other recurring video offerings with newsletters, memberships or registered user accounts.

Next, businesses should review the actual network requests produced when someone watches a video. Installed marketing tags do not always behave identically across pages or user sessions. The relevant question is what information is transmitted, to whom and under what consent conditions.

Website operators should assess whether those transmissions include video titles, video URLs, viewing events, user IDs, advertising identifiers or other data that may connect an individual to specific video content.

Consent also requires separate analysis. The VPPA contains specific requirements for informed written consent, including electronic consent, distinct presentation and withdrawal rights. A general website cookie banner does not necessarily establish compliance with those requirements.

Businesses relying on consent should evaluate both the language presented to consumers and the technical controls that determine whether tracking occurs before or after consent is obtained. A banner stating that tracking is disabled offers limited protection if advertising technologies continue transmitting protected information before a valid choice.

Finally, businesses should distinguish between tools that are installed and tools that are actively transmitting information. A tag inventory alone may not show how tracking behaves across video playback, navigation, logged-in sessions, consent rejection or subsequent changes to user preferences.

Where Captain Compliance Fits Into VPPA Risk Management

For organizations managing large websites or multiple digital properties, VPPA-related reviews require more than a written privacy policy. They require technical visibility into the tracking technologies operating on the website and controls over when those technologies can transmit information.

Captain Compliance provides privacy management software that includes cookie and tracking technology scanning, consent management, automated blocking controls, privacy notices and consumer rights management.

These capabilities can help organizations identify relevant tracking technologies, implement consent choices and investigate whether third-party scripts operate consistently with their intended privacy configurations.

VPPA compliance remains dependent on the underlying statutory requirements and the facts of each implementation. No consent management platform can establish legal compliance merely by displaying a banner. Organizations must ensure that their technical behavior, consent language and data disclosures satisfy applicable law.

The Bigger Question: How Far Does a 1988 Privacy Law Reach Into Modern Websites?

The VPPA originated after the disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video-rental history. Congress responded with a law designed to protect individuals from the disclosure of records revealing their video preferences.

Nearly four decades later, the same statute is being litigated over digital newsletters, Facebook identifiers and advertising pixels.

The Supreme Court is not being asked to determine whether every advertising pixel violates the VPPA. It is deciding a narrower question that may have substantial practical consequences: whether the statute protects subscribers to any goods or services offered by a video provider or only subscribers to audiovisual goods or services.

A plaintiff-friendly ruling could increase the number of people who qualify for statutory protection, particularly across websites that offer free subscriptions and distribute prerecorded video content. A defendant-friendly ruling could limit that exposure by requiring a closer relationship between the consumer and the provider’s audiovisual offerings.

Either way, the underlying question of what information websites transmit to advertising and analytics providers will remain central to VPPA litigation.

Businesses that know exactly which technologies operate on their websites, what information those technologies disclose and whether legally sufficient consent exists will be better positioned to evaluate their exposure when the Supreme Court issues its decision.

Primary Sources and Court Decisions

Put this into practice

Turn privacy guidance into working controls.

Captain Compliance helps teams discover tracking technologies, enforce consent, manage privacy requests and document the evidence behind every decision.

Book a demo Run a free scan