The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global this fall, a case that will clarify who may bring a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. The law was originally written to stop 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.
Why the case matters for everyday websites
Today, the same statute is being used in lawsuits against a wide range of online businesses – from sports‑news sites and retailers to local news outlets – that place video next to standard advertising tools. The central question before the justices is whether the law protects only people who sign up for video‑related products and services, or anyone who signs up for any service on a site that also shows video.
How the dispute began
Michael Salazar signed up for a free daily newsletter from 247Sports.com, a college‑sports recruiting site owned by Paramount Global. He alleges that the site had a Meta tracking pixel installed, and that when he watched videos while logged into Facebook, the pixel sent his Facebook account information, along with the titles and URLs of the videos he viewed, to Meta without his consent.
A federal district judge and a divided appellate panel ruled in favor of Paramount, holding that merely signing up for a newsletter does not make a person a “video consumer” under the Act. Salazar’s side argues the opposite.
Who is weighing in
Several major companies and trade groups, including Meta, the National Retail Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed briefs urging the Court to side with Paramount. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy‑rights organization, has filed on Salazar’s side. Their involvement signals that the outcome could affect a broad cross‑section of American businesses.
Court split on the issue
Two federal appellate courts have already addressed nearly identical facts and reached opposite conclusions. One panel held that a fan who signed up for the NBA’s free newsletter and watched NBA.com videos while logged into Facebook was protected by the Act. Another panel found that a classic‑TV website’s email‑sign‑up users were likewise covered. The district court that heard Salazar’s case took the opposite view, emphasizing that the law was written specifically to protect video‑watching habits.
Technology at the heart of the dispute
Most websites embed tiny tracking codes, often called pixels, that report visitor activity to companies such as Meta or Google. A 2024 study found roughly half of the sites examined used Meta’s version of this tool, including more than half of S&P 500 companies. The lawsuits focus not on the mere presence of a pixel, but on whether the pixel transmits the name or URL of a video together with an identifier that reveals who watched it. Plaintiffs argue that this combination of content and identity is precisely the private information the 1988 law was designed to protect.
Potential financial impact
The law guarantees a minimum award of $2,500 per violation, even if no actual harm is proven. Because a single lawsuit can cover tens of thousands of site visitors, the statutory minimum can quickly balloon into claims worth tens of millions of dollars. This financial exposure explains why many companies are eager to see the Supreme Court provide a clear rule.
What’s at stake for local businesses
Beyond Hollywood and streaming platforms, the case could affect local retailers, community news sites, sports leagues, real‑estate listings, and even small‑town newsletters that embed video content. A decision that broadens who may sue could expose many small businesses to costly litigation, while a narrower ruling would limit exposure to entities that actually provide video services.
Next steps
The Court will hear oral arguments on October 14, 2026, after agreeing to take the case on January 26, 2026. Whatever the outcome, the decision will set a national precedent on the reach of the Video Privacy Protection Act and will guide how businesses across the country handle video and tracking technologies.
Original reporting: KTBS 3 (Shreveport) — read the source article.
