In a move that could reshape privacy law nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on January 26, 2026, that it will take up a challenge to the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision affirming the dismissal of a case under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The outcome may redefine the scope of protection under the VPPA and clarify the definition of “consumer” as it applies within the statute in the context of today's digital environment.
The case at issue, Salazar v. Paramount Global, spurs from allegations that Paramount Global transmitted the plaintiff’s viewing history to a third party without his consent in violation of the VPPA. The plaintiff claims that he subscribed to an online sports newsletter from a website owned and operated by Paramount, which he then used to access video content on the site.
Background
The VPPA was initially enacted in response to the publication of Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history from his local video store during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. The statute prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information concerning any consumer. A consumer is defined as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” In its original form, the VPPA was really targeted to prevent brick-and-mortar video stores from disclosing information that linked customers to particular materials or services.
In recent years, litigants have increasingly invoked the VPPA in relation to a range of digital technologies, including streaming platforms, electronic newsletters, movie theaters, and digital advertising. This trend has led to considerable debate concerning the proper application of the statute and has resulted in circuit splits regarding key definitions under the VPPA.
The Circuit Splits
The most notable division concerns the interpretation of the term “consumer.” The Second Circuit allows for an expansive view of consumer, determining that it should be understood to encompass a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of any of a video tape service provider’s goods or services, audiovisual or not. The Seventh Circuit adopted a similarly expansive view of consumer, allowing for claims premised on subscription to a newsletter. For instance, if an individual subscribes to email newsletters or advertisements for a business, provided that there is video content available on the general website, this likely qualifies the individual as a consumer under the expansive VPPA interpretation.
However, the D.C. Circuit and the Sixth Circuit have reached opposite conclusions mandating that plaintiffs demonstrate a connection between their subscription and specific audiovisual materials. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit found that an individual is a consumer under the VPPA only where they rent, purchase, or subscribe to audiovisual materials. Under this narrower reading, a consumer would have to specifically sign up for something like a streaming service — where the core offering is video content — to have the ability to bring a VPPA claim. The Sixth Circuit reached this conclusion while addressing Salazar, reasoning that a newsletter containing no audiovisual materials cannot proceed under the VPPA.
Potential Clarity From the Supreme Court
While the Supreme Court provided no comment outlining its determination, a decision to grant certiorari presents an opportunity for much-needed clarification regarding the application of the VPPA. Moving forward, businesses are likely to benefit from a definitive ruling, as it will facilitate the development of more effective VPPA compliance policies. Furthermore, organizations may experience a significant reduction in risk associated with VPPA claims by alleviating uncertainties about judicial interpretation.
For more information, please contact us or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.