Case: Nicole Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper Publishing Company, LLC, No. 25-1040
Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2026-03-04
Status: Pending
Question Presented: The Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") prohibits a "video tape service provider" from "knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). The statute unambiguously defines "consumer" to include a "subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider." Id. § 2710(a)(1). The courts below assumed Washington Newspaper was a "video tape service provider." Ms. Pileggi subscribed to a ne...
On February 27, 2026, petitioner Nicole Pileggi filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to resolve whether the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer” extends to subscribers of any goods or services offered by a video tape service provider, or only to subscribers of that provider’s audiovisual offerings specifically. Counsel Joshua Ian Hammack filed on her behalf after receiving an extension from the Chief Justice through late February.
The underlying facts are straightforward. Pileggi subscribed to a newsletter from Washington Newspaper Publishing Company. The company, assumed by both lower courts to qualify as a “video tape service provider,” disclosed her video-watching history to Facebook. Both lower courts dismissed her VPPA claim, reasoning that because her subscription was to a newsletter rather than an audiovisual service, she did not qualify as a statutory “consumer.”
The legal question turns on statutory text. The VPPA defines “consumer” as a “subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Pileggi argues the phrase covers all goods or services the provider offers, not merely its video products. The lower courts read the phrase more narrowly, tying consumer status to the audiovisual nature of the subscription. The Court has already agreed to address this precise question in Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459, making this petition a strong candidate for a hold or consolidation.
The practical stakes are considerable. Many media companies offer both newsletters and video content, and they routinely share subscriber data with advertising platforms. Whether newsletter subscribers can invoke VPPA protections depends entirely on how the Court resolves the “consumer” definition. Pileggi will likely track Salazar closely.