Overview
The Supreme Court is poised to decide Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459, a case that will shape how the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA) applies to "video tape service providers" in the age of the internet and digital media. The question presented is whether the phrase "goods or services from a video tape service provider," as used in the VPPA's definition of "consumer," refers to all of a provider's goods or services or only its audiovisual services.[1] Because only a "consumer" may sue under the VPPA, the answer will determine who has a claim when a website shares video-viewing data with third parties through pixels, cookies, and advertising technology. A ruling adopting the audiovisual limitation on "goods or services" would considerably narrow the category of transactions that can make a person a "consumer," and would, for example, largely foreclose theories premised on free newsletter sign-ups or unrelated purchases from companies that also host video content. Paramount describes these suits as arriving "in droves," with many new class actions filed each year against businesses far different from the video rental stores of the 1980s and 1990s.[2]
Salazar is part of a broader trend in privacy litigation in which plaintiffs invoke decades-old statutes to challenge modern online data practices. The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), enacted in 1967 to address telephone wiretapping and eavesdropping, is a prominent example: plaintiffs have relied on CIPA's wiretapping and pen register provisions to bring putative class actions challenging products in the modern digital ecosystem, such as website chat features, session replay software, tracking pixels, and similar technologies. As with the VPPA, these cases ask courts to determine whether statutory language drafted for analog technologies reaches digital tools that the legislature could not have contemplated, and the statutory damages available under both laws have made them attractive vehicles for class litigation. Both sides make textual arguments, and the case will show how the Court weighs text against statutory context and the technology of the enactment era. The Court's approach to the VPPA's text in Salazar therefore will be closely watched by litigants and courts grappling with similar questions under CIPA and other legacy privacy statutes.
The practical stakes of the case lie in the scope of the defendant universe going forward. Under Salazar's reading, a person who purchased or subscribed to anything from a business that also offers video content could sue over the transfer of video-viewing information to third parties, even if the business is only tangentially involved in producing and disseminating video content. That concern surfaced at oral argument, where Justice Kavanaugh pressed petitioner's counsel on why a business such as Chick-fil-A would not fall within the statute. Petitioner's counsel appeared to concede the law would not apply, but Justice Kavanaugh noted that other plaintiffs were unlikely to concede the point in future cases. By contrast, the narrower reading urged by Paramount would largely confine VPPA exposure to businesses such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and other services that sell rentals, purchases, or subscriptions to video content itself, leaving businesses that merely host video on their websites outside the statute's reach.
At oral argument on October 14, 2026, several Justices appeared skeptical of the petitioner's broad reading, homing in on the ubiquity of video on the modern internet and the potentially sweeping consequences of the petitioner's interpretation. Justice Jackson questioned whether Congress's intent should be assessed in light of the fact that, in 1988, it "wasn't really conceivable that you could access videos without purchasing them or renting them." Justice Kavanaugh raised concerns about "repurposing a statute that was really about public disclosure of what individuals viewed into a statute that regulates data sharing for targeted advertising on the internet," and pressed both sides on what it means to be "engaged in the business" of delivering audiovisual materials, flagging amicus concerns that a broad reading could reach "every business in America that has video on its website." Justice Alito observed that the VPPA "is based on the technology of the 1980s," while Justice Kagan suggested that companies could avoid liability by obtaining consent or by ceasing to sell users' information.
The tenor of the questioning suggests that a decision narrowing the "consumer" element is a realistic possibility. Such a ruling would fit a growing pattern of courts and legislatures pushing back on efforts to apply older privacy statutes to routine online technologies. Indeed, on September 30, 2026, California enacted Senate Bill 690, which eliminates the private right of action under CIPA's pen register and trap and trace provision for conduct on websites and mobile applications, leaving enforcement to the California Attorney General.[3] The Court's resolution of Salazar could have significant implications for media companies, online retailers, and other businesses that offer video content alongside non-video goods or services. However, it is unlikely to be the last word on the broader issue of applying pre-internet statutes to the digital advertising ecosystem. While numerous state omnibus privacy laws regulate "targeted advertising," and related practices, older laws, particularly those with statutory damages, continue to find favor within the plaintiffs' bar for challenging well-established practices.
Thus, compliance efforts in this area should not focus merely on privacy regimes. Other laws, including wiretap laws in two-party consent states, and specific restrictions on certain types of processing or disclosures (e.g., Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act[4]), should also be considered. In many circumstances, a properly drafted consent (or other disclosure) is sufficient to mitigate most concerns, but depending on the law in question, that consent may have specific operational requirements or elements.
[1] 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(1); Brief for Petitioner at i, Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2026).
[2] Brief for Respondent at 9-10, Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459 (U.S. June 23, 2026).
[3] S.B. 690, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess., 2026 Cal. Stat. ch. 976 (amending Cal. Penal Code § 637.2). The amendment takes effect January 1, 2027, and applies retroactively to pending claims in actions filed on or after January 1, 2025.
[4] 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
