The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global this fall, a dispute that could reshape how the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act applies to modern websites. The law, originally written to stop video‑rental stores from disclosing what movies customers rented, is now being used in lawsuits against companies that host video alongside advertising tools.
What the case is about
Michael Salazar signed up for a free daily newsletter from 247Sports.com, a college‑sports recruiting site owned by Paramount Global. He alleges that a tracking pixel from Meta, Facebook’s parent company, captured his Facebook account information and the titles of videos he watched on the site, then sent that data to Meta without his consent.
Salazar argues that the Video Privacy Protection Act protects his privacy because the tracking tool revealed exactly what video he watched and who he is – the type of private information the law was designed to safeguard. Paramount Global counters that the law only protects people who sign up for video‑related products, not someone who merely subscribes to a newsletter.
Why the Court’s decision matters
Courts across the country have split on this question. A federal judge and an appeals panel sided with Paramount, saying a newsletter sign‑up does not make a person a “video consumer.” In contrast, two other appellate courts ruled that the law does extend to anyone who watches video on a site that also collects identifying data.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether the statute’s protection is limited to traditional video‑rental contexts or whether it covers any online visitor whose video‑watching habits are linked to personal identifiers. The answer could open the door to many more lawsuits, or close the door for businesses that simply host video content.
Who is watching the case
Major industry groups have filed briefs. Meta, the National Retail Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all urge the Court to side with Paramount, arguing that expanding the law would burden countless businesses with costly litigation. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy‑rights organization, backs Salazar’s position.
Even though the case centers on a privacy statute, the stakes are financial. The law guarantees a minimum of $2,500 per violation, regardless of actual harm. With millions of website visitors potentially covered, a single lawsuit could generate claims worth tens of millions of dollars.
How the issue shows up in everyday business
Most websites embed small tracking codes—often called pixels—that report visitor activity to advertising firms like Meta or Google. A 2024 study found roughly half of the sites examined used Meta’s tracking tool, including more than half of S&P 500 companies.
The lawsuits do not target the presence of these tools per se, but rather the specific transmission of video titles together with personal identifiers. If a site’s pixel only reports generic page views, it likely stays within the law. However, when the pixel sends the exact video a visitor watched along with an account ID or cookie, the situation falls under the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Recent related settlement
In a separate case, blockchain collectibles platform Dapper Labs settled for $5 million over similar privacy claims. The settlement covered users active between June 2020 and January 2025 and was approved by a New York state court in April 2026. While Dapper Labs did not admit wrongdoing, the payout underscores how seriously businesses are taking the potential liability.
Whether the Supreme Court ultimately expands or narrows the law’s reach, the decision will affect a broad range of ordinary businesses—from retailers and local news sites to real‑estate listings and sports leagues—that combine video content with advertising technology.
Original reporting: El Paso News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
