Justices hear Salazar v. Paramount on whether VPPA bans sharing viewing history with advertisers

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could significantly alter how digital companies handle user data for advertising purposes. The justices considered whether a 1988 federal law designed for physical video rentals applies to online video tracking and data sharing with social media platforms. This decision may determine if millions of Americans can sue tech firms for unauthorized data disclosure.

Michael Salazar filed a class-action lawsuit in 2022 after signing up for a free newsletter from 247Sports.com, a college sports site owned by Paramount Global. Salazar alleges that the website used a Meta tracking tool, known as the Pixel, to send his video viewing history to Facebook without his explicit consent. He is seeking up to $2,500 per person in damages, arguing that this practice violates the Video Privacy Protection Act, which was enacted to protect consumer privacy regarding video rentals.

Legal Arguments and Historical Context

The core dispute centers on the definition of a "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Paramount’s legal team, led by Paul Clement, argued that the statute does not cover individuals who subscribe to free digital newsletters, a position that previously led the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the lawsuit. Clement warned that extending the law to digital media would create a sweeping internet privacy regime, potentially forcing websites to place videos behind consent walls.

The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988 following a controversy involving Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. A journalist obtained Bork’s video rental history from a store manager and published it, prompting Congress to legislate protections for rental records. Salazar’s lawyer, Joshua I. Hammack, told CNET that the law was intended to give Americans control over their private information, even as companies like Paramount seek new ways to monetize it. He stated that ordinary consumers might be shocked to learn how much of their online activity is tracked and sold.

Judicial Reactions and Industry Impact

During the proceedings, justices appeared skeptical of Paramount’s narrow interpretation of the law. Justice Elena Kagan noted that websites have two simple choices: obtain consent or stop selling private data. Justice Sonia Sotomayor added that gating videos behind consent mechanisms would simply leave the choice to users. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether it was appropriate to repurpose a video rental law for web ad tracking, acknowledging that such a ruling would likely result in over-broad consent requirements.

According to Bloomberg Law, Paramount’s arguments did not seem to persuade the justices. A ruling is expected by next summer. If Salazar prevails, the decision could open the door to numerous lawsuits against sites that use tracking tools on video pages. This case arrives as other media firms, including Twitch and Amazon, face separate class actions regarding viewer data and AI training on livestreams.

What should you do?

Security professionals and users should monitor the outcome of this case, as it may change compliance requirements for data collection. Organizations using third-party tracking pixels on video content should review their consent mechanisms to ensure they align with potential broader interpretations of privacy laws. Users can check website privacy policies to understand how their viewing data is shared with advertisers. Once the Court issues a ruling, companies may need to update their data handling practices to mitigate legal risks.

Background: Privacy policies

A privacy policy is a legal document that explains what data a company collects, why it collects it, and how it shares that information. It defines your rights regarding consent and deletion. Understanding it helps you control your digital footprint and avoid unintended data exposure to third parties.

Read the full guide: How Privacy Policies Actually Work: A Practical Explanation

What to do and how to stay safe: Paramount Global

• Review current consent mechanisms for video content to ensure they capture explicit user permission for data sharing.
• Audit third-party tracking tools, such as the Meta Pixel, to understand what data is being transmitted to external platforms.
• Monitor legal developments regarding the Video Privacy Protection Act to anticipate changes in compliance obligations.
• Update privacy policies to clearly disclose how video viewing history is collected and shared with advertisers.

Step-by-step guide: How to Remove Data from Data Brokers: The Manual Cleanup Process

General security guidance from the Threat Times newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Supreme Court case Salazar v. Paramount Global about?

The case concerns whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act applies to digital video tracking and the sharing of viewing history with advertisers like Facebook.

Why did Michael Salazar sue Paramount Global?

Salazar alleges that Paramount’s website shared his video viewing history with Facebook via a tracking pixel without his consent, violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.

What could happen if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Salazar?

A ruling for Salazar could enable class-action lawsuits against websites that share user video data with third parties, potentially forcing changes in how digital ads are targeted.