- in United States
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Healthcare industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Consumer Protection and Law Department Performance topic(s)
Salazar v. Paramount Global
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could significantly clarify the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") and its application to modern digital media platforms. The case asks who qualifies as a "consumer" under a federal privacy statute enacted in the bygone videotape era but increasingly invoked in litigation involving online content and data sharing.
Salazar, a subscriber to Paramount's 24/7 Sports written newsletter, alleges that the company unlawfully shared subscribers' personal information with Facebook in violation of the VPPA. The statute generally prohibits video service providers from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information about their consumers and authorizes private lawsuits for damages.
The Sixth Circuit dismissed the case, concluding that Salazar was not a VPPA "consumer" because he subscribed only to a written newsletter rather than to audiovisual content. In reaching that conclusion, the court interpreted the statute to cover only users of video-related goods or services, rejecting a broader reading that would extend the VPPA's protections to all offerings provided by a company engaged in video services.
The Supreme Court is poised to determine whether the VPPA's definition of "consumer" turns on the nature of the specific content a user receives or, instead, on the broader range of services offered by the provider. Although the question may appear technical, the Court's answer could have meaningful consequences for digital privacy litigation, particularly as media companies increasingly combine video, written, and interactive content within a single platform.
For example, if the Court adopts a broader reading of the statute, a consumer who signs up for a written newsletter or lifestyle email from a media company could potentially bring a VPPA claim if that company later shares subscription or viewing-related data with advertising platforms. Or media and streaming businesses that bundle written articles, video content, and personalized advertising tools within a single subscription could face significantly expanded privacy litigation exposure even when the user never subscribed specifically to video services.
In other words, the Court's eventual decision may expand or narrow the reach of the VPPA, with potential implications for how companies structure subscriptions, share user data, and manage privacy-related litigation risk. But that decision will have to wait until the Court's next term (OT'26) as the case will not be argued until then.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
