The Supreme Court has agreed to decide a question with sweeping consequences for digital privacy class actions: who counts as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act? The grant in Salazar v. Paramount Global arrives as the VPPA—a 1988 statute born of a political scandal—has become one of the most potent tools in plaintiffs’ class-action arsenal against media and technology companies.
Case: Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports, No. 25-459
Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: October 15, 2025
Status: Cert Granted — January 26, 2026
Question Presented: Whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the VPPA’s definition of “consumer,” refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.
Background: A Bork-Era Privacy Law Goes Digital
Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 after a Washington, D.C., newspaper published Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The statute prohibits “video tape service providers” from knowingly disclosing a “consumer’s” personally identifiable information to third parties without consent, and it creates a private right of action with statutory damages of $2,500 per violation—no proof of actual harm required.
For decades the VPPA was a niche statute. Then digital advertising changed everything. Plaintiffs’ lawyers discovered that websites embedding third-party pixels—tracking tools from Facebook, Google, and others—were arguably disclosing users’ video-viewing histories to advertisers in violation of the Act. The result has been a wave of class actions against news publishers, sports websites, streaming services, and retailers that host video content alongside other products.
The Statutory Question
The VPPA defines “consumer” as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The phrase “from a video tape service provider” is doing a lot of work, and courts have divided over what it modifies.
On one reading—favored by defendants and adopted by some circuits—a person qualifies as a “consumer” only if they rented, purchased, or subscribed to audiovisual goods or services. Under this view, someone who signed up for a sports news newsletter from a company that also streams video is not a VPPA consumer. On the other reading—favored by plaintiffs—anyone who is a customer of a company that qualifies as a “video tape service provider” for any purpose is protected, regardless of whether they personally purchased video content.
The practical stakes are enormous. 247Sports, a division of Paramount Global, offers sports news articles and newsletters alongside video highlights. Salazar, who subscribed to a free email newsletter, claims he was a “consumer” and that 247Sports disclosed his video-viewing data to Facebook via the Meta Pixel. The Sixth Circuit held in Paramount’s favor, finding that the newsletter subscription alone did not make Salazar a VPPA consumer. Salazar petitioned, and the Court granted review.
Why the Court Took This Case
The VPPA consumer-definition question has fractured district courts nationwide, generating inconsistent outcomes in otherwise similar cases. A narrow statutory ruling here could resolve thousands of pending claims and clarify the outer limits of VPPA liability for companies whose business models involve both video and non-video content—a category that now includes most major media companies. The Court relisted the petition twice before granting, suggesting careful consideration of the question’s scope.
Counsel and Briefing Schedule
Petitioner Michael Salazar is represented by Joshua Ian Hammack of Bailey & Glasser, LLP. Respondent Paramount Global is represented by Gregory Silbert of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. The Court granted an extension on February 9, 2026: petitioner’s merits brief is due April 17, 2026, and respondent’s brief is due June 23, 2026.
The decision will likely arrive in the Court’s October 2026 Term—unless the case is resolved more quickly on the briefing now underway.