Supreme Court Tackles Video Privacy in Digital Age: A Deep Dive into Salazar v. Paramount Global
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, that could significantly reshape how companies handle user data in the digital age. At the heart of the dispute lies the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a law originally designed to protect video rental records, and its applicability to modern data tracking practices like those employed by Facebook Pixel (now Meta Pixel). This case isn't just about Paramount and Facebook; it has far-reaching implications for countless businesses that collect and share user information online. The central question: who qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA, and how broadly does the law’s protection extend?
The Case: Salazar’s Allegations Against Paramount
Michael Salazar filed a class action lawsuit against Paramount in 2022, alleging that the media giant violated the VPPA by disclosing his viewing history to Facebook without his consent. Salazar signed up for an online newsletter through 247Sports.com, a Paramount-owned website, providing his email address in the process. While logged into his Facebook account, Salazar viewed videos on 247Sports.com. This seemingly innocuous action triggered the automatic sharing of his personally identifiable information – including his Facebook ID and the videos he watched – with Facebook via the Meta Pixel installed on the website.
According to Salazar’s petition, Paramount and Facebook then leveraged this data to create and deliver targeted advertising, boosting their respective revenues. The lawsuit centers on the claim that this data sharing occurred without Salazar’s explicit consent, a direct violation of the VPPA.
Understanding the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)
The VPPA was enacted in 1988 in response to public outcry over the disclosure of Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The law aims to protect the privacy of individuals’ video viewing habits. It defines a “consumer” as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Crucially, a “video tape service provider” is defined broadly to include those offering “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”
The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider” encompasses all of a provider’s offerings, or is limited to audiovisual materials specifically. This seemingly subtle distinction has massive implications for the scope of the VPPA in the digital era.
The Circuit Split: Conflicting Court Rulings
Lower courts have been divided on the interpretation of the VPPA’s “consumer” definition, creating a “circuit split” that prompted the Supreme Court’s intervention. Salazar initially lost his case in a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, and the ruling was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The 6th Circuit majority argued that the VPPA’s intent was to protect privacy related to audiovisual materials, and Salazar’s subscription to a newsletter didn’t qualify him as a “consumer” under the law.
Conflicting Interpretations Across Circuits
- 6th Circuit & DC Circuit: Narrow interpretation, limiting “goods or services” to audiovisual content.
- 7th Circuit: Broader interpretation, stating that “any purchase or subscription from a ‘video tape service provider’ satisfies the definition of ‘consumer.’”
- 2nd Circuit: Ruled in favor of Salazar in a related case (Salazar v. National Basketball Association), finding that the law’s text and purpose support a broader definition of “consumer” that includes newsletter subscribers. However, the Supreme Court denied review in the NBA case.
The existence of this 2-2 circuit split was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in the Salazar v. Paramount Global case.
Paramount’s Defense and Arguments
Paramount vehemently argued against the Supreme Court taking up the case, asserting that even if the circuit split existed, Salazar’s claims would fail under the rulings of the 2nd and 7th Circuits for alternative reasons. Paramount contended that computer code shared through targeted advertising (the Meta Pixel data) doesn’t qualify as “personally identifiable information” under the VPPA. Furthermore, they argued that 247Sports.com isn’t a “video tape service provider” in the traditional sense.
Paramount emphasized that 247Sports.com is a sports news website offering articles, photos, and free video clips, a fundamentally different business model than renting video cassettes. They argued the VPPA was never intended to regulate such online activities. Paramount also suggested Salazar’s complaint had other legal flaws that could complicate the Supreme Court’s review.
The Role of the Meta Pixel and Modern Data Tracking
The Meta Pixel, formerly known as the Facebook Pixel, is a crucial element of this case. It’s a small snippet of JavaScript code that websites can embed to track visitor behavior and optimize advertising campaigns. Meta describes it as a tool to understand “how people interact with your website” and “improve your advertising performance.” However, privacy advocates argue that the Pixel enables extensive data collection and sharing without adequate user consent.
The Pixel’s ability to track users across websites and link their activity to their Facebook profiles raises significant privacy concerns. This case highlights the tension between businesses’ desire to leverage data for targeted advertising and individuals’ right to control their personal information. The outcome could influence how companies utilize tracking technologies like the Meta Pixel in the future.
Implications for Businesses and Online Privacy
The Supreme Court’s decision in Salazar v. Paramount Global will have profound implications for a wide range of businesses. If the Court adopts a broad interpretation of the VPPA’s “consumer” definition, companies that collect and share user data – even for seemingly unrelated services – could face increased legal risk. This could include:
- Increased Litigation: A broader VPPA could trigger a wave of class action lawsuits against companies accused of violating the law.
- Compliance Costs: Businesses may need to invest in more robust data privacy practices and obtain explicit consent for data sharing.
- Advertising Restrictions: Targeted advertising strategies could be curtailed if companies are limited in their ability to collect and use user data.
Conversely, a narrower interpretation would provide businesses with greater clarity and flexibility in their data collection practices. However, even in that scenario, companies will still need to navigate a complex and evolving landscape of data privacy regulations, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, and other state and federal laws.
Looking Ahead: SCOTUS Timeline and Potential Outcomes
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in Salazar v. Paramount Global during its 2026-27 term, which begins in October 2026. A decision is likely to be issued in the spring of 2027. The potential outcomes are significant:
- Broad Interpretation: The Court could rule that the VPPA’s “consumer” definition encompasses anyone who engages in any transaction with a “video tape service provider,” regardless of whether it involves audiovisual materials.
- Narrow Interpretation: The Court could uphold the 6th Circuit’s ruling, limiting the VPPA’s scope to transactions directly related to audiovisual content.
- Compromise: The Court could attempt to find a middle ground, offering a more nuanced interpretation of the law.
Regardless of the outcome, Salazar v. Paramount Global is a pivotal case that will shape the future of video privacy and data protection in the digital age. It underscores the ongoing challenge of applying decades-old laws to rapidly evolving technologies and the importance of balancing individual privacy rights with the legitimate interests of businesses. As GearTech continues to monitor this case, we will provide updates and analysis on its potential impact on the tech industry and consumers alike.