Key points
- The US Supreme Court is hearing Salazar v. Paramount Global regarding the Video Privacy Protection Act.
- Plaintiffs argue the 1988 law bans sharing video data for ads without consent.
- A ruling could expose many websites to class action lawsuits over tracking practices.
The short version
- The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the Video Privacy Protection Act applies to digital video tracking.
- Michael Salazar claims Paramount shared his viewing history with Facebook without permission.
- A decision in favour of Salazar could trigger widespread privacy litigation against media sites.
The details
The US Supreme Court is currently weighing the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act in the case of Salazar v. Paramount Global. According to CNET, the court’s decision could fundamentally alter how tech companies use personal data for targeted advertising. The case originates from a 2022 class action lawsuit filed by Michael Salazar. He signed up for a free digital newsletter from 247Sports.com, a college sports news website owned by Paramount Global. Salazar alleges that the website included a tracker that shared his video viewing history with Facebook without his explicit consent. He seeks up to $2,500 per person in damages for this alleged violation.
Paramount Global argues that the 1988 federal law was designed for analog videotape rentals and does not cover digital media or free newsletter subscribers. Paul Clement, Paramount’s lawyer, warned that applying the law broadly would create a sweeping internet privacy regime. He suggested that websites might respond by placing videos behind consent walls, limiting access for users. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected Salazar’s lawsuit based on this interpretation of the term "consumer" within the act. However, the Supreme Court justices appeared open to a wider interpretation during oral arguments.
The context
The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed by Congress 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, leading to public outcry. This incident prompted the creation of the law to protect customer privacy in video rentals. Salazar’s legal team argues that the spirit of the law should apply to digital content as well. Joshua I. Hammack, Salazar’s lawyer, stated that ordinary consumers might be shocked by the extent of online tracking and data sales. He argued that the act was designed to give Americans control over their private information.
During the hearings, 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 leave the choice to users. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether it was appropriate to repurpose a video rental law for web ad tracking, noting it would lead to over-broad consent requirements. Bloomberg Law reported that Paramount’s arguments did not seem to persuade the justices. A ruling is expected by next summer.
Defender's checklist
Organisations should review their current data collection practices regarding video content. Legal teams must assess whether existing consent mechanisms comply with a potential broad interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Companies should prepare for possible class action lawsuits similar to Salazar v. Paramount Global. It is advisable to audit third-party tracking tools, such as the Meta Pixel, to understand what data is being shared. Businesses may need to implement explicit consent walls for video playback to mitigate legal risk. Monitoring the Supreme Court’s final decision will be critical for updating privacy policies.
If your data is involved
If you consume video content online, you should review the privacy settings on your social media accounts. Check whether you have authorised third-party apps to access your viewing history or activity data. Look for options to limit data sharing with advertisers or partners. Be aware that follow-up scams often emerge after privacy news breaks. Scammers may send emails claiming your data was leaked or that you are eligible for a refund. Verify the sender’s address and never click links in unsolicited messages. Check your account directly through the official website rather than using links in emails.
Background: Online tracking
Online tracking is the collection of data about your digital activities. It works through cookies, device fingerprints and network logs. Advertisers and data brokers use this information to build profiles that predict your interests. You can limit this by adjusting browser settings, using private networks and managing consent preferences carefully.
Read the full guide: What is online tracking: how data follows you and how to stop it
What to do and how to stay safe: Paramount Global
- Review your privacy settings on major social media platforms to restrict data sharing with third parties.
- Check browser permissions and disable any unnecessary tracking extensions or cookies.
- Monitor your email for phishing attempts that reference recent privacy lawsuits or data breaches.
- Once the Supreme Court issues its ruling, review your organisation’s legal compliance strategy for video data.
Step-by-step guide: Smartphone Privacy Settings for Small Business Operations
General security guidance from the Cipher Insider newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Video Privacy Protection Act?
It is a 1988 federal law originally designed to protect the privacy of video rental records.
Who is involved in the Supreme Court case?
The case is Salazar v. Paramount Global, involving a lawsuit by Michael Salazar.
What could happen if Salazar wins?
A win could open the door to more lawsuits against sites using tracking tools on video pages.
