The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global this fall, a case that could reshape the reach of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. The law was originally enacted to prevent video‑rental stores from disclosing what movies customers rented, after a newspaper revealed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s rental history during his 1987 confirmation hearings.
What the case is about
At issue is a single question: Who may bring a lawsuit under the Act? Courts across the country have issued conflicting rulings, and the justices’ decision could either broaden or narrow the pool of potential plaintiffs.
Michael Salazar, a subscriber to a free daily newsletter from 247Sports.com – a college sports recruiting site owned by Paramount Global – alleges that the site’s Meta tracking tool captured his Facebook account information and the titles of videos he watched, then sent that data to Meta without his consent.
A federal district judge and a divided appellate panel ruled in favor of Paramount, holding that signing up for a newsletter does not make a person a “video consumer,” so the Act does not apply. Several major businesses and trade groups, including Meta, the National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed briefs urging the Court to adopt that view.
Opposing rulings and the broader impact
Two other appellate courts have reached the opposite conclusion in similar cases. One involved a fan who signed up for the NBA’s free newsletter and watched videos on NBA.com while logged into Facebook; that court held the Act protected the fan. Another case involving a classic‑TV website’s email‑sign‑up users also resulted in a finding that the Act applied.
These divergent rulings prompted the Supreme Court to step in. The decision will affect not only media companies but also any business that places video alongside advertising tools – from retailers and local news sites to real‑estate platforms.
How the tracking tools work
Most websites embed small pieces of code, often called pixels, that report visitor activity to companies like Meta or Google. A 2024 study found roughly half of the sites examined used Meta’s tracking pixel, including more than half of S&P 500 companies.
The lawsuits focus on a narrow claim: when a visitor watches a video, the tracking tool transmits the video’s name or URL together with an identifier such as a cookie‑derived account ID. Plaintiffs argue that this combination – the specific video watched plus the visitor’s identity – is the private information the 1988 law was designed to protect.
Potential financial stakes
The Act guarantees a minimum award of $2,500 per violation, regardless of actual harm. Because a single lawsuit can cover tens of thousands of visitors, potential liability can quickly reach tens of millions of dollars. This financial exposure explains why companies are eager to have the Supreme Court clarify the law’s scope.
Recent settlements illustrate the stakes. Dapper Labs, the firm behind NBA Top Shot and NFL All Day, agreed to a $5 million settlement covering users active between June 2020 and January 2025. While Dapper Labs did not admit wrongdoing, the settlement avoided a protracted court battle.
What’s at stake for businesses
If the Court rules that the Act applies only to those who sign up for video‑related products, many businesses – from local retailers to community news sites – could avoid costly lawsuits. Conversely, a broader interpretation would open the door to a wave of litigation against any site that hosts video alongside tracking tools.
Regardless of the outcome, the decision will set a national precedent that will guide how companies design their websites and advertising practices for years to come.
Original reporting: KTVZ (Central Oregon) — read the source article.
