Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide who qualifies as a “consumer” under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a 1988 law originally enacted to protect the privacy of individuals’ video rental and purchase records. The VPPA protects consumers’ personally identifiable information, which is defined under the law as “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider [VTSP].”

Importantly, the law only protects “consumers,” which are defined as any “renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services” from a VTSP. If someone is not considered a consumer, the VPPA does not restrict disclosure of their personally identifiable information under the statute.

Although initially designed for the era of physical video rentals, the VPPA has become central in lawsuits involving modern technologies like tracking pixels, streaming platforms, and website video viewing data. As video content moved online, courts have grappled with how the VPPA applies to digital practices. Many websites and apps share technical data (such as IP addresses and device identifiers) with third-party analytics providers. Plaintiffs in recent cases have argued that, when this technical data is linked to specific video viewing information, it qualifies as personally identifiable information under the VPPA.

A key question before the Supreme Court is whether the VPPA protects subscribers to non-video content, such as newsletters. Federal courts are currently split on this issue:

• In Salazar v. Paramount Global, the Sixth Circuit dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit by a newsletter subscriber, ruling that he was not a “consumer” under the VPPA because he had not subscribed to audiovisual content.
• This decision created a split with other circuit courts. For example, the Second Circuit allowed a similar suit to proceed against the National Basketball Association, holding that a newsletter subscriber could qualify as a “consumer” under the VPPA where personal information was exchanged for access to the newsletter even if the individual’s subscription was not for video content.
• The NBA previously petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision, which the Court declined to review late last year.

On January 26, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to review Salazar’s claim against Paramount, signaling its intent to resolve the ongoing disagreement among federal courts about who qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision is expected to clarify whether the VPPA’s privacy protections are limited to traditional audio-visual goods and services or if they extend to individuals who interact with video content online.