Does the Supreme Court adopt a broad reading of 'consumer' under the VPPA?
Will the U.S. Supreme Court hold, in Salazar v. Paramount Global, that a website visitor who subscribes only to a company's non-audiovisual online service (such as a newsletter) qualifies as a 'consumer' entitled to sue under the Video Privacy Protection Act over undisclosed sharing of video-viewing data?
Leans toward affirming the narrow reading — three circuits (Second, Sixth, Seventh) have already read 'consumer' narrowly, giving the Court a well-developed body of reasoning to affirm rather than overturn, though the circuit split itself shows genuine disagreement below
The case for a broad reading: the VPPA's purpose was to protect video-viewing privacy broadly, and a newsletter subscriber's video-viewing history is exposed exactly the same way a video subscriber's would be, so limiting 'consumer' status to audiovisual subscribers arguably lets companies dodge the statute by labeling their primary offering something else. The case for the narrow reading: three circuits have now read the statutory text — 'goods or services from a video tape service provider' — as requiring a connection to the provider's audiovisual offerings specifically, and a broad reading could sweep in nearly any website visitor who watches an embedded video anywhere online, a scope critics say Congress didn't intend in a 1988 law aimed at video-rental stores.
No fixed date · Argued Oct 14, 2026 (No. 25-459, from the Sixth Circuit); a ruling is expected before the end of the Court's 2026 Term (by roughly June 2027), with no fixed decision date set
Michael Salazar subscribed only to a free email newsletter on Paramount's 247Sports.com and watched videos on the site while logged into Facebook; he alleges the embedded Meta Pixel sent his Facebook ID and video-viewing history to Facebook without consent, in violation of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (enacted after a newspaper published a Supreme Court nominee's video-rental history). The Sixth Circuit held Salazar wasn't a statutory 'consumer' because he subscribed only to Paramount's newsletter, not to any audiovisual good or service — joining the Second and Seventh Circuits' narrow reading in a split with other circuits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari Jan 26, 2026 and heard oral argument today, Oct 14, as the second case of its October sitting (after Suncor v. Boulder). A broad reading would substantially expand VPPA exposure for any company that offers video content alongside unrelated products or services online; a narrow reading would preserve the current circuit-majority limit and curb the recent wave of VPPA class actions over embedded video and tracking pixels.
The Court must choose between two competing readings of the statutory phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider' — either it covers all of a provider's goods and services (the broad reading) or only its audiovisual ones (the narrow reading adopted by the Sixth Circuit below) — a discrete statutory-interpretation holding with no partial middle outcome on the question presented.
Researched Oct 14, 2026 · tracked since Oct 14, 2026
Build a position
You agree with the market.
Nothing here has positive expected value — the price already reflects this view. Move the slider to where you think the odds actually are.
Take a side
Court adopts the broad readingthis is “yes”
The VPPA's privacy purpose protects video-viewing history regardless of what else a visitor subscribed to, and a win for Salazar reopens his case while substantially expanding viable VPPA claims against any company with embedded video alongside other digital offerings.
Worth knowing: A ruling for Salazar only decides 'consumer' status under the statute — it doesn't resolve whether Paramount's pixel use actually violated the VPPA, so a win here reopens the case rather than deciding liability outright.
Court affirms the narrow reading
Three circuits have already read 'consumer' as tied to a provider's audiovisual offerings specifically, and the Court affirms that reading rather than adopting a scope critics argue would sweep in nearly any website visitor who ever watches an embedded video.
Worth knowing: Even an affirmance doesn't end VPPA litigation risk broadly — it leaves open other unresolved questions, like how courts define personally identifiable information under the statute, and Congress could still legislatively expand the consumer definition regardless of how the Court rules here.
5 sources, leaning both ways
- mixedSCOTUSblog — Court to hear argument on how a video privacy law applies in the internet ageLays out the question presented, the Sixth Circuit's holding that Salazar wasn't a 'consumer,' and the competing circuit readings, without predicting an outcome.
- mixedFaegre Drinker — From Blockbuster to Browser: Supreme Court to Define the Modern VPPA ConsumerLaw-firm analysis framing the case as deciding how a 1988 video-rental privacy statute applies to modern embedded-video websites, with the circuit split presented as genuinely open.
- yesBailey Glasser — Supreme Court to Hear BG Appeal on Scope of Video Privacy Protection ActAnnouncement from plaintiff-side counsel framing the cert grant as a chance to correct what it argues is an overly narrow lower-court reading that lets companies evade the statute's privacy protections.
- noHoodline — Supreme Court to put Facebook's video tracker on trialRecaps that both lower courts ruled against Salazar's consumer status, consistent with the circuit-majority narrow reading the Court would need to overturn to rule for him.
- mixedData Privacy and Security Insider — Supreme Court to Define Who Counts as a 'Consumer' Under VPPAPreviews the stakes for companies embedding video content broadly and notes the circuit split predates this case, with no single dominant reading nationally.