Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why Ranks Sign Up
Supreme Court to define who counts as a 'consumer' under video privacy law

Supreme Court to define who counts as a 'consumer' under video privacy law

Rule Changes

A 1988 law written to protect VHS rental records now threatens billions in liability for media companies using tracking pixels

January 26th, 2026: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari

Overview

Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988 after a reporter published Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history. Thirty-eight years later, the law has become the basis for hundreds of class action lawsuits against media companies using tracking pixels on their websites—and the Supreme Court just agreed to decide who can sue under it.

The case turns on a single word: 'consumer.' The Second and Seventh Circuits say anyone who signs up for any service from a company that also offers video content qualifies. The Sixth Circuit says only people who subscribe specifically to video content count.

With statutory damages of $2,500 per violation and thousands of pending lawsuits, the answer could mean billions in liability—or the end of an entire category of privacy litigation.

Play on this story Voices Debate Predict

Key Indicators

250+
VPPA Class Actions Filed in 2024
An 82% increase from 137 cases filed in 2023
$2,500
Statutory Damages Per Violation
Multiplied across class members, exposure can reach billions
47%
Websites Using Meta Pixel
Including 55% of S&P 500 companies
3
Circuit Courts Split
Second and Seventh Circuits favor plaintiffs; Sixth Circuit favors defendants

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

George Orwell

George Orwell

(1903-1950) · Modernist · satire

Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.

"A law born from exposing what a man watched has become a weapon wielded not by citizens seeking privacy, but by lawyers seeking profit. The courts now argue over the meaning of 'consumer' with the same fervor once reserved for 'freedom' or 'justice'—proof that when language becomes valuable enough, its meaning will be tortured until it confesses to anything."

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

Play

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Log in to play. Track your picks, climb the leaderboards. Log in Sign Up
Predict 4 ways this could play out. Contrarian picks score more — points lock when the scenario resolves. Log in to play
Timeline Five events from this story — drag them oldest to newest. Log in to play
Connections Sixteen names from the news. Find the four hidden groups of four. Log in to play

People Involved

Michael Salazar
Michael Salazar
Petitioner before the Supreme Court
 Brandon Wise
Brandon Wise
Representing Salazar before the Supreme Court

Organizations Involved

Paramount Global
Paramount Global
Media Conglomerate
Respondent in Supreme Court case

A global media and entertainment company that owns CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, and 247Sports.
Meta Platforms
Meta Platforms
Public Technology Company
Third party in VPPA litigation wave

Owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, whose Meta Pixel tracking tool is central to most VPPA lawsuits.
Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Federal Court
Reviewing VPPA consumer definition

The highest court in the federal judiciary, which will resolve the circuit split on who qualifies as a 'consumer' under the VPPA.

Timeline

September 1987 January 2026

9 events Latest: January 26th, 2026 · 4 months ago
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari

    Latest Legal

    The Supreme Court agrees to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global and resolve whether the VPPA's 'consumer' definition covers subscribers to any service from a video provider or only those subscribing to audiovisual content.

  2. Supreme Court Denies Cert in Similar VPPA Cases Twice

    Legal

    The Supreme Court twice denies petitions for certiorari to resolve similar VPPA disputes before ultimately accepting Salazar v. Paramount as a 'cleaner vehicle' presenting solely the audiovisual requirement question.

  3. Salazar Petitions Supreme Court

    Legal

    Salazar asks the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision, arguing the circuit split leaves media companies with inconsistent obligations depending on where they're sued.

  4. Sixth Circuit Rules Against Salazar in Paramount Case

    Legal

    The Sixth Circuit affirms dismissal, holding that 'goods or services' in the VPPA's definition of 'consumer' refers only to audiovisual materials. Newsletter subscribers who don't pay for video content are not protected.

  5. Seventh Circuit Adopts Broad 'Consumer' Definition

    Legal

    In Gardner v. MeTV, the Seventh Circuit holds that providing an email address and zip code to receive personalized services makes someone a 'subscriber' and thus a 'consumer' under the VPPA.

  6. Second Circuit Rules for Salazar in NBA Case

    Legal

    The Second Circuit reverses dismissal of Salazar's separate lawsuit against the NBA, holding that signing up for a free newsletter made him a 'consumer' under the VPPA because the NBA also provides video content.

  7. Salazar Files Class Action Against Paramount

    Legal

    Michael Salazar sues Paramount Global, alleging that 247Sports violated the VPPA by using Meta's tracking pixel to share his video viewing history with Facebook without consent.

  8. President Reagan Signs the Video Privacy Protection Act

    Legislative

    Congress passes the VPPA, prohibiting 'video tape service providers' from disclosing customers' rental or purchase information without consent. The law provides statutory damages of $2,500 per violation.

  9. Washington City Paper Publishes Bork's Rental History

    Inciting Incident

    During Robert Bork's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a reporter obtains and publishes a list of 146 films the nominee's family had rented from a video store. The revelation sparks bipartisan outrage over privacy.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

May 2016

Spokeo v. Robins (2016)

Thomas Robins sued people-search website Spokeo for publishing inaccurate information about him—including false claims about his education, wealth, and marital status—without alleging any actual damages. He sought statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which provides $100-$1,000 per willful violation.

Then

The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, holding that statutory violations require 'concrete' injury to establish standing, not just a procedural violation.

Now

Established that Congress cannot create standing by statute alone, setting the foundation for later restrictions on privacy class actions.

Why this matters now

If the Court applies Spokeo's concrete injury requirement strictly, VPPA plaintiffs may need to show actual harm from data sharing—not just that sharing occurred—potentially limiting class size or blocking cases entirely.

June 2021

TransUnion v. Ramirez (2021)

Sergio Ramirez was flagged as a potential terrorist by TransUnion's name-matching system, embarrassing him at a car dealership. He won a $40 million jury verdict on behalf of a class of 8,184 people similarly flagged. But only 1,853 class members had their credit reports actually shared with third parties.

Then

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that only the 1,853 members whose reports were shared had standing; the other 6,332 suffered no concrete harm from merely having inaccurate internal files.

Now

Significantly tightened class action standing requirements, requiring each plaintiff to demonstrate individualized harm rather than relying on statutory violations alone.

Why this matters now

TransUnion suggests VPPA class members must individually show their data was actually transmitted to Meta and that this caused concrete harm—a higher bar than merely visiting a website with a tracking pixel.

July-October 1987

Robert Bork Confirmation Battle (1987)

President Reagan nominated federal judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. His confirmation became a bitter ideological fight. During the hearings, Washington City Paper reporter Michael Dolan obtained Bork's video rental history from a store clerk and published it, revealing mundane tastes in British dramas and whodunits.

Then

Bork's nomination failed 42-58, the largest margin of defeat for a Supreme Court nominee. The rental list publication sparked bipartisan outrage.

Now

Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988, creating one of the few federal laws specifically protecting consumer privacy—now at issue 37 years later.

Why this matters now

The VPPA was written for an era of physical video stores and paper rental records. Whether its protections extend to digital tracking on websites serving free content tests whether a 1988 law can govern 2026 technology.

Sources

(16)
+10
SCOTUSblog Bloomberg Law National Law Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit WilmerHale American Bar Association Business Law Today Morrison Foerster Wikipedia Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Bailey Glasser U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center WilmerHale Morrison Foerster Bailey Glasser