Supreme Court hears Salazar v. Paramount Global on Video Privacy Protection Act
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday 14 October 2026 in Salazar v. Paramount Global, which asks how the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act applies to newsletter subscribers of a website that hosts video. A ruling is expected by the end of the term.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could shape online privacy litigation. NewsweekN “The Court heard arguments in the case on Wednesday.” Read at Newsweek ↗ Just the NewsRC “Justices on the high court heard arguments in Salazar v. Paramount, a case focused on the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.” Read at Just the News ↗ Mixed · 2Michael Salazar alleges Paramount violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing his video-viewing history on its 247Sports.com website to Facebook without his consent; he had signed up for the site's newsletter. NewsweekN “He obtained a subscription to the website by signing up for its newsletter and then used the subscription to watch videos on the website while logged into his Facebook profile.” Read at Newsweek ↗ Just the NewsRC “According to his lawyers, Paramount shared his Facebook ID and video-watching history to Meta.” Read at Just the News ↗ Centre · 1Paramount argues Salazar is not a protected "consumer" because he subscribed to a newsletter, not to a video service. A lower court sided with Paramount, while Salazar's lawyers say other courts have found on "virtually identical facts" that a newsletter subscription makes someone a consumer. NewsweekN “Paramount, however, has argued that Salazar does not qualify as a protected consumer because he subscribed to a newsletter, rather than to a video service specifically.”“Other courts, however, have found “on virtually identical facts” that a subscription to a newsletter from a video tape service provider does in fact make one a “consumer,” his lawyers argued.” Read at Newsweek ↗
Centre · 1The question before the Court is whether "goods or services from a video tape service provider" in the VPPA's definition of "consumer" covers all of the provider's goods and services or only its audiovisual ones. NewsweekN “The specific question the Court has been asked to define is whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider” as used in the VPPA’s definition of a “consumer” refers to all of the provider’s goods and services, or only its audiovisual goods or services.” Read at Newsweek ↗ Centre · 1Paul Clement, for Paramount, said the plaintiff is trying to "repurpose the statute" and offered hypotheticals such as Chick-fil-A, whose website may play videos but which is not in the video business. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed him on picking easy hypotheticals, and the exchange drew laughter from the justices. NewsweekN ““You’ve picked some hypotheticals that are particularly helpful for you, Chick-fil-A.”“He said it is his “job to focus on” the easier hypotheticals, prompting laughter.” Read at Newsweek ↗ Mixed · 2Joshua Hammack, for Salazar, said Congress put audiovisual limits in the definitions of video tape service provider and personally identifiable information, but not in the definition of consumer. He said liability requires being engaged in the video business and knowingly disclosing personal information without consent. NewsweekN ““But Congress put audiovisual limitations where it wanted them, and the definitions of both videotape service provider and personally identifiable information not in the definition of consumer. That choice is dispositive,” he said.” Read at Newsweek ↗ Just the NewsRC ““The only thing that triggers liability is the knowing disclosure of personally identifiable information without consent,” Hammack said.” Read at Just the News ↗
Right · 1According to the Center Square report carried by Just the News, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett voiced concern about stretching the law to modern services and the resulting civil penalties. Alito cautioned against reading the statute for "all its worth when Congress wasn't thinking about this." Just the NewsRC “Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns about expanding the definition of video tape service providers into the modern age.”““Don’t read the statute for all its worth when Congress wasn’t thinking about this,” Alito said” Read at Just the News ↗ Right · 1Clement said a broad reading could mean billions of dollars in damages, and that a class action of over 100,000 247Sports subscribers seeks $250 million. The same report says Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, citing congressional intent, appeared skeptical of Paramount's arguments. Just the NewsRC ““There are over 100,000 subscribers to 247sports in a class action, seeking $250 million in liability from this case alone,” Clement said.”“However, several justices on the court appeared skeptical of arguments in favor of Paramount.” Read at Just the News ↗ Centre · 1The VPPA was passed after a video rental clerk gave a journalist the list of 146 movies rented by Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and his family during his confirmation hearings. NewsweekN “The Blockbuster-era law was passed nearly 40 years ago, after a video rental store clerk provided a journalist with a list of 146 movies rented by Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and his family during his confirmation hearings.” Read at Newsweek ↗
Mixed · 2A ruling is expected by the end of the Court's term; Newsweek says likely no later than June 2027, while Just the News says by July 2027. NewsweekN “A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s current term, likely no later than June 2027.” Read at Newsweek ↗ Just the NewsRC “The U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the consumer protection case by July 2027.” Read at Just the News ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left0 outlets
No left outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- Newsweek leads with a light moment: the justices laughing at Clement's answer to Roberts, then explains the case and both sides' arguments.
- Emphasis
- The Roberts–Clement exchange, the legal question, the Bork history and both lawyers' arguments.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not report the justices' leanings, the potential damages Clement cited, or Kavanaugh, Alito and Barrett's concerns.
- Charged language
- “Blockbuster-era law”
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Just the News, carrying a Center Square report, leads with the Court appearing skeptical of the consumer privacy lawsuit, focusing on liability risks and conservative justices' concerns.
- Emphasis
- Justices' concerns about broad liability, Clement's $250 million and 'billions' damages estimate, and how individual justices split.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not mention the Roberts–Clement exchange or the lower court's ruling for Paramount; the headline's skepticism toward the lawsuit sits beside reporting that three justices doubted Paramount's position.
- Charged language
- “This is crazy”
- For example
-
“The U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical Wednesday during arguments over whether video consumers are protected from having data shared between online companies.” — Just the News
“There is a reason that every district court judge says this cannot be right. This is crazy.” — Just the News
What every side reports
- Arguments in Salazar v. Paramount were heard on Wednesday 14 October 2026.
- The case concerns the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act and whether a newsletter subscriber is a protected 'consumer'.
- Paul Clement argued for Paramount and Joshua Hammack for Salazar.
- The law was prompted by the disclosure of Robert Bork's video rental records.
Where accounts differ
-
How the justices leaned
- Centre
- Newsweek does not assess the bench's leaning; it highlights Roberts pressing Clement on his hypotheticals.
- Right
- Just the News headlines that the Court 'appears skeptical' of the consumer privacy lawsuit, while also reporting that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan seemed skeptical of Paramount.
-
Expected timing of the ruling
- Centre
- Likely no later than June 2027.
- Right
- By July 2027.
Paramount organisation
Through Paul Clement, Paramount says the plaintiff is not a protected consumer, that the statute should not be stretched to any site with videos, and that a broad reading risks billions in damages.
“Clement argued that the plaintiff is trying to “repurpose the statute” to allow it to apply to individuals who have never rented, purchased or subscribed to a video.” — Newsweek
“Paul Clement, a lawyer for Paramount, said allowing the interpretations of the Video Privacy Protection Act to go forward in a broad way could lead to billions of dollars in civil damages.” — Just the News
Supreme Court of the United States organisation
Justices probed both sides: Roberts challenged Clement's hypotheticals, Kavanaugh, Alito and Barrett worried about breadth, and Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan pointed to congressional intent. A ruling is expected by the end of the term.
“Chief Justice John Roberts, however, pressed him on the hypotheticals he raised.” — Newsweek
“Justices on the high court will deliberate on the case over the next several months.” — Just the News
Video Privacy Protection Act law
The 1988 law bars video tape service providers from disclosing consumers' personal information without consent; the dispute is who counts as a 'consumer'.
“The legislation prevents a “consumer” of video goods and services from having personally identifiable information released to a third party.” — Just the News
Left0 articles
No coverage yet.
Centre1 article
-
Supreme Court Justices Laugh at Lawyer's Answer in Paramount Case
Neutral Explanatory account opening with a humorous courtroom moment, then laying out both sides' arguments and the law's history.
Right1 article
-
U.S. Supreme Court appears skeptical of consumer privacy lawsuit
Mixed Headline says the Court is skeptical of the privacy suit, with emphasis on liability concerns and Paramount's damages estimate, though the body also reports justices skeptical of Paramount.
- 14 Oct 22:30 First NewsweekN Supreme Court Justices Laugh at Lawyer's Answer in Paramount Case
- 15 Oct 04:50 +6h 20m Just the NewsRC U.S. Supreme Court appears skeptical of consumer privacy lawsuit
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.
Ask about this story
Loading…