A federal privacy law born in the VHS rental era is scheduled for a Supreme Court test Wednesday, when the justices consider whether a 247Sports newsletter subscriber can invoke the law after Paramount allegedly disclosed his Facebook ID and video-viewing activity to Facebook.
The Court’s public docket lists Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports, for argument on October 14. Its October argument calendar says the Court convenes at 10 a.m. Eastern, or 9 a.m. Central. The dispute does not ask the justices to decide whether every website that uses Facebook tracking technology violates federal law. Instead, the case turns on who qualifies as a protected “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act.
A VHS-Era Law Meets Modern Tracking
Congress enacted the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988. The law defines a consumer as a renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider and generally bars a covered provider from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information about a consumer’s video activity except under specified circumstances.
The law grew out of the publication of then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video-rental history during his confirmation fight, according to the Sixth Circuit opinion in the case. The statute allows an aggrieved consumer to bring a civil action and authorizes courts to award actual damages but not less than $2,500 in liquidated damages, along with possible punitive damages and litigation costs.
Michael Salazar alleges that he subscribed to a 247Sports online newsletter and watched videos on the sports website while logged into Facebook. He alleges Paramount used tracking software on 247Sports.com to disclose his Facebook ID and video-watching history to Facebook without his consent.
Paramount counters that Salazar signed up only for a free email newsletter and never rented, purchased or subscribed to audiovisual material from 247Sports. Paramount says he later watched free videos on the website independently of the newsletter.
The Fight Over One Word: Consumer
Salazar argues that Congress defined “consumer” broadly enough to cover a subscriber to any goods or services offered by a video provider. Under his reading, the statute limits liability through the type of information disclosed, not by requiring the underlying subscription itself to involve video.
Paramount argues courts should read the statute as a whole and limit protection to people who rent, buy or subscribe to audiovisual goods or services. A person who subscribes only to a non-video newsletter, the company argues, does not become a protected video consumer simply because the same company also offers videos.
A divided Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Salazar’s lawsuit in April 2025. The majority concluded that the relevant goods or services must involve audiovisual content. Judge Rachel Bloomekatz dissented. The court expressly broke with broader interpretations adopted by the Second and Seventh Circuits, creating conflicting approaches to the statute.
The Supreme Court granted review on January 26. The docket shows amicus briefs from Meta Platforms, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, America’s Newspapers, the News/Media Alliance, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and several technology and entertainment groups.
Why The Case Reaches Beyond Sports
The legal question could matter to media, retail and entertainment websites that combine free videos, newsletters, accounts and third-party advertising or analytics tools. A broader definition of consumer would allow more users to invoke the VPPA when they claim a video provider disclosed protected viewing information. A narrower definition would restrict the statute to users whose qualifying transaction involved audiovisual goods or services.
The Dallas Express posts same-day transcripts and audio recordings after oral arguments are heard.
Provided by Dallas Express
