What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on October 14, 2026, in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could determine whether the Video Privacy Protection Act reaches people who subscribe to a company’s non-video service but watch videos on its website. The Court had not issued a decision as of October 14. At stake is whether a company may share a viewer’s identity and viewing history with Facebook for targeted advertising without consent.
What the Supreme Court is deciding
The case is Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459. The Court granted review on January 26, 2026, after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument took place on October 14, 2026.
![Information Privacy Law [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41xPyhfV3cL._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The question presented is how to read the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of a “consumer.” The statute covers “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The dispute is whether “goods or services” means every service sold by a company that provides video, or only that company’s audiovisual goods and services.
That distinction matters because Michael Salazar subscribed to Paramount’s 247Sports online newsletter and used the site to watch videos. He alleges that Paramount sent his Facebook identifier and information about the videos he watched to Facebook without his consent, allowing targeted advertising. Paramount says the newsletter was a free written service, not an audiovisual rental, purchase, or subscription covered by the VPPA.
#1 Best Overall
What the Video Privacy Protection Act protects
The definition of “consumer”
Section 2710(a)(1) of Title 18 defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The statute was written when video stores dominated the market, but its wording does not expressly name streaming platforms, websites, social-media identifiers, or online advertising.
The information and disclosure rules
Section 2710(a)(3) defines personally identifiable information to include information identifying a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services. Section 2710(b)(1) generally bars a provider from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information concerning a consumer without consent.
In practical terms, a VPPA claim requires more than showing that a site displayed a video. The person must fall within the statutory definition of consumer, the information must identify that person as having requested or obtained particular video material or services, and the provider must have knowingly disclosed it without a legally sufficient consent mechanism.
Why this is called a Blockbuster-era privacy case
Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 after a newspaper published the video-rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork during his confirmation controversy. The list contained 146 movies, according to the Associated Press in 2026. The episode turned private viewing choices into a national political story and helped produce a law aimed at preventing video-rental records from being disclosed.
Rank #3
The technology has changed radically since then. Video can now appear beside newsletters, free articles, registration systems, cookies, and advertising tools. The Supreme Court is being asked whether the statute’s consumer definition follows that modern business model or remains tied to an audiovisual transaction.
The two competing interpretations
Salazar’s reading
Salazar argues that Congress chose broad words: “goods or services,” not “audiovisual goods or services.” On that view, a person can become a consumer of a video tape service provider by subscribing to one of the provider’s services, even if that particular service is a written newsletter. If the same person then watches videos and the provider links the viewing record to a Facebook identifier, Salazar says the disclosure can fall within the VPPA’s protections.
Rank #4
Paramount’s reading
Paramount argues that the phrase must be read in the context of a statute focused on video materials and services. It says a free written newsletter is not a video rental, purchase, or subscription, and that treating every subscriber to every product as a VPPA consumer would turn a video-rental law into a general restriction on targeted online advertising.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Issue | Salazar’s position | Paramount’s position |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “goods or services” | All goods or services supplied by a provider that offers video | Only audiovisual goods or services within the statute’s video focus |
| Newsletter subscription | A subscription can satisfy the consumer definition even when the newsletter is written | A free written newsletter is not an audiovisual transaction |
| Viewing information and Facebook ID | Linking the identifier to viewing history can be a disclosure of personally identifiable information | The VPPA should not impose liability on this kind of advertising data flow when the person did not obtain video as a subscriber |
| Effect on websites | Video sites would need to treat a wider range of users as protected consumers | The broader reading would create uncertain, potentially unadministrable advertising restrictions |
Why the ruling could affect streaming and web publishers
The Court is not deciding every question about streaming in the abstract. It is deciding whether a person’s subscription to a non-video service can satisfy the VPPA’s consumer definition when that person also watches videos from the provider. The reasoning could nevertheless influence lawsuits involving websites that combine video with newsletters, memberships, registrations, or other services.
Best Value
A ruling for Salazar could increase litigation exposure for ad-funded sites that connect viewing behavior with advertising identifiers, even when the user’s paid or subscribed relationship began with a non-video product. A ruling for Paramount could limit the statute’s reach where the user obtained only a written or otherwise non-audiovisual service, preserving a narrower connection between VPPA protection and a video transaction.
Neither side’s position automatically answers whether a particular disclosure was authorized. Consent remains a separate issue, and the facts of the data transfer, the provider’s notices, and the user’s relationship with the service would still matter.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Elena Kagan pressed Paramount lawyer Paul Clement about the practical choices available to companies. As reported by the Associated Press on October 14, she said: “Going forward, you have two very simple solutions. One is to get consent. Easy enough. People do it every day. And the other is to stop selling people’s private information. Take your pick.”
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The exchange highlighted the dispute’s policy dimension: whether the VPPA should be read as a focused rule for video records or as a stronger barrier to using identifiable viewing data in online advertising.
What is known—and what is still unresolved
- The Supreme Court heard the case on October 14, 2026.
- The case is based on an alleged disclosure of Salazar’s Facebook ID and viewing history after he subscribed to Paramount’s 247Sports newsletter and watched videos on the site.
- The statutory question concerns the scope of “goods or services from a video tape service provider.”
- The Court had not announced its vote, reasoning, remedy, or decision as of October 14, 2026.
Until the Court rules, there is no nationwide answer from this case about whether every newsletter subscriber, registered user, or streaming viewer is a VPPA consumer. The eventual opinion will determine how far the statute reaches when a modern website’s video service is bundled with other products and advertising systems.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
