Overview
- The Court granted review of Salazar v. Paramount to determine whether the VPPA’s term “consumer” includes subscribers to non‑audiovisual services or only to video-related services.
- Plaintiff Michael Salazar alleges Paramount’s 247Sports site disclosed his Facebook ID and the videos he watched to Meta via the Pixel to enable targeted advertising.
- The Sixth Circuit ruled Salazar was not a VPPA consumer based on his free email newsletter sign-up, the D.C. Circuit reached a similar view, and the Second and Seventh Circuits permitted comparable claims.
- Paramount contends the VPPA is a Blockbuster‑era statute that does not regulate modern internet advertising, that 247Sports is not a video tape service provider, and that shared code is not personally identifiable information.
- The case could expose publishers and ad-tech practices to significant class-action liability because the VPPA provides $2,500 in statutory damages per violation, with briefing and arguments to follow the grant.