Supreme Court to rule if 1988 video privacy law covers free online streaming

Key points

• The VPPA was enacted in 1988 after the Washington City Paper published Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history, prompting Congress to ban the disclosure of personally identifiable information by video tape service providers.
• Michael Salazar, a California resident, sued Paramount Global after the company used a tracking pixel on its 247Sports.com site to share his video-watching history with Meta (Facebook) for targeted advertising, despite him only using a free newsletter subscription.
• Paramount argues the VPPA is a 'Blockbuster-era statute' that does not apply to free online content, claiming Salazar is not a 'consumer' because he did not pay for audiovisual content.
• Salazar argues the law's definition of 'consumer' includes any subscriber of 'goods or services' from a video provider, meaning free newsletters and tracking pixels are covered.
• Lower courts, including the 6th Circuit, dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that 'goods or services' in the VPPA refers only to audio-visual content, not ancillary services like newsletters.

Background

This case is part of a broader Supreme Court term addressing digital and privacy issues, following earlier reviews of immigration detention policies and excessive fines. The VPPA remains one of the few specific federal privacy laws in the absence of comprehensive national data protection legislation, making its interpretation critical for the current digital economy.

How outlets are covering it

USA Today and SCOTUSblog highlight the core legal dispute: whether the VPPA's definition of 'consumer' extends to free digital services or is limited to paid video rentals. Paramount and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argue that applying the VPPA to free content would create an 'unworkable internet-privacy regime' and threaten the ad-supported model that funds much of the internet. Privacy advocates, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, argue the law is more relevant today due to the proliferation of online tracking and the lack of a general federal privacy law. SCOTUSblog notes that the 6th Circuit adopted a narrow reading of 'goods or services,' while Salazar's legal team argues Congress did not limit the term to audio-visual materials, citing the example of Blockbuster selling non-video items. Law.com, while primarily focused on other Supreme Court cases, confirms the court's active engagement with digital privacy and business litigation, though it does not provide specific analysis on Salazar v. Paramount Global.

Why it matters

The ruling will determine whether the VPPA can be used to challenge the widespread practice of sharing user data across platforms for targeted advertising. A broad interpretation could expose countless companies to class-action lawsuits for routine tracking, while a narrow interpretation would leave a significant gap in federal privacy protections for online users. The outcome will shape the legal boundaries of digital privacy and the viability of ad-supported content models.

What to watch

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June 2027. The ruling will likely clarify the scope of the VPPA and may prompt Congress to consider broader federal privacy legislation or lead to further litigation over data tracking practices.