US Supreme Court weighs who is protected by video privacy law

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could define who is protected by a privacy law written during the VHS era. The Court has not decided the case. The issue is narrower than a general ban on behavioral advertising: the justices must interpret who qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act, or VPPA.

Michael Salazar says he subscribed to a free 247Sports newsletter and watched videos on Paramount’s website. His complaint alleges that Meta Pixel transmitted data linking him to the videos he viewed to Facebook without the consent required by the statute. Those claims are the plaintiff’s allegations, not a judicial finding about Paramount’s conduct. The company’s central challenge is whether Salazar belongs to the group of people entitled to sue under the VPPA.

The definition of consumer is at the center of the case

Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 after the video-rental history of then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was disclosed. The statute protects information that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services. Its definition of consumer includes anyone who rents, purchases or subscribes to “goods or services” from a video tape service provider.

The disagreement comes from those two words. Salazar argues that the statute does not limit “goods or services” to audiovisual offerings. Under that reading, subscribing to the 247Sports newsletter created the necessary relationship with the company, while his viewing history remained protected. Paramount responds that the subscription must concern an audiovisual product or service; a free sports newsletter separate from the videos is not enough.

The Supreme Court took the case after federal courts reached different conclusions. It arrived from the Sixth Circuit, which adopted the narrower interpretation and rejected Salazar’s claim. At this stage, the Supreme Court is not deciding whether every alleged transmission occurred or creating a universal rule for every cookie. It is resolving the legal meaning of “consumer” within one particular statute.

Questions from the justices are not a result

The official transcript, which remains subject to final review, shows concern about the boundaries of both interpretations. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the statute’s broader purpose should restrain an expansive reading. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether services from a video provider would more naturally mean video-related services. From another direction, Justice Elena Kagan noted that companies can obtain digital consent, a mechanism the statute itself allows.

Those exchanges identify the case’s difficulties, but they are not votes. Justices regularly test both sides with hypotheticals and skeptical questions. Saying that the Court has already decided the dispute, or that Paramount is certain to prevail, would turn oral-argument signals into a fact that does not exist.

The possible impact on websites, video and advertising

If the Court accepts Salazar’s reading, companies that carry videos and maintain other subscription relationships with users may face greater pressure to separate consent requests and review tracking pixels. The statute permits informed electronic consent presented separately from other obligations, including advance permission for a limited period. The practical consequence may be less a ban on targeted advertising than a requirement to build authorization flows that comply with the VPPA.

A ruling for Paramount would narrow the protected group: a person would need to show that the rental, purchase or subscription was audiovisual in nature. That could end some lawsuits based only on newsletters, free accounts or non-video products, although other privacy and interception laws may still apply depending on the facts.

The direct legal effect will be in the United States, not a new rule for users or businesses elsewhere. International services, however, often standardize consent, analytics and advertising systems. An interpretation of a 1988 law could therefore influence modern technical choices about what data a video player sends, when a viewer becomes identifiable and how authorization is recorded.

What is confirmed is that the argument occurred and that the Court is considering the stated legal question. The real scale of any change will depend on the opinion, for which no specific date has been announced. Until then, predictions about a winner or the disappearance of advertising pixels remain inferences rather than facts.