Written by: Haim Ravia, Dotan Hammer
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global, agreeing to resolve a deepening circuit split over who qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The VPPA, enacted in 1988 following the publication of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental records, prohibits “video tape service providers” from knowingly disclosing “personally identifiable information” concerning their “consumers” without informed, written consent. The statute authorizes liquidated damages of $2,500 per violation, a provision that has fueled a significant volume of class action litigation in recent years.
The case arises from allegations by plaintiff Michael Salazar that Paramount, through its college sports website 247Sports.com, used Meta’s pixel tracking technology to transmit his Facebook ID and video viewing history to Meta without his consent. Salazar had subscribed to the website’s free email newsletter but did not subscribe to any audiovisual content. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the complaint, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Salazar was not a VPPA “consumer” because he subscribed only to a newsletter and not to audiovisual goods or services.
The question presented is whether the statutory phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the VPPA’s definition of “consumer,” refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services. The federal circuits are sharply divided. The Sixth Circuit and D.C. Circuit have adopted a narrow interpretation, holding that a person qualifies as a VPPA consumer only when subscribing to goods or services in the nature of video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials. The D.C. Circuit has gone further still, ruling that even consuming audiovisual materials is insufficient unless the disclosed viewing history pertains to the same videos the individual purchased, rented, or subscribed to.
In contrast, the Second Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have adopted a broad reading, holding that the VPPA covers anyone who rents, purchases, or subscribes to any good or service from an entity that provides video content, even if the subscription itself is unrelated to audiovisual material. Under this interpretation, subscribing to a free email newsletter from a company that also offers video content would be sufficient to confer VPPA consumer status.
The Supreme Court’s decision carries significant implications for the digital media landscape. A broad reading of “consumer” would substantially expand VPPA exposure for companies that make video content available alongside unrelated products or services, potentially subjecting routine analytics and advertising practices to statutory damages claims. A narrow reading would curtail the recent wave of VPPA class actions targeting websites with embedded video content.
Click here to view the Supreme Court docket in Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459.
