On January 26, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global (d/b/a 247Sports), a case that squarely presents a question driving a substantial share of modern Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) litigation: Who qualifies as a “consumer” entitled to sue under the statute?
When will the Court hear it?
The case is set for October Term 2026. The Court has not yet set an oral argument date.
What SCOTUS is being asked to decide
The Supreme Court will decide whether the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” — i.e., a person who obtains “goods or services from a video tape service provider” — extends to any goods or services offered by such a provider, or is instead limited to its audiovisual goods or services.
The underlying key facts (as alleged)
Plaintiff alleges he subscribed to an online newsletter from 247Sports.com. While logged into his Facebook account, Salazar watched videos on the 247Sports.com website. Paramount had installed Facebook’s tracking Pixel on the website, which collected and transmitted to Facebook information about Salazar’s video-viewing activity, including the video content name, its URL, and Salazar’s Facebook ID. This disclosure allegedly occurred without Salazar’s knowledge or consent. Salazar’s putative class action lawsuit alleges that Paramount’s conduct violated the VPPA.
Why this grant matters: It targets a pressure point in the ‘VPPA revival’
Although enacted in 1988, the VPPA has become a favored theory in a growing set of privacy class actions challenging alleged disclosures from video pages to third parties—often involving pixels, analytics or adtech integrations —and often seeking statutory damages at scale.
A recurring, outcome-determinative issue in these cases has been whether a plaintiff can plausibly allege “consumer status based on relationships that are adjacent to video viewing (e.g. newsletter sign-ups, registrations or other account relationships), particularly where video content is free to access and not part of a paid audiovisual subscription. The Supreme Court’s review squarely targets that threshold question.
The circuit split backdrop (and why SCOTUS stepped in)
Lower courts have taken divergent approaches to the scope of “consumer,” contributing to inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions and uncertainty for digital publishers, streaming-adjacent platforms, and organizations that host video content while also offering non-video services (including newsletters).
Potential implications: What to watch for in a decision
A narrower “consumer” definition could meaningfully limit VPPA exposure.
If the Court adopts a construction that effectively requires the relevant “goods or services” to be audiovisual, defendants may have a stronger basis to challenge VPPA claims at the pleading stage where the alleged subscription or service relationship is non-video (e.g., newsletters or general site registration). That outcome could narrow the set of plaintiffs who can invoke the VPPA and reduce forum-driven variability in early motion practice.
A broader “consumer” definition could sustain (or expand) VPPA claim viability
Conversely, if “goods or services” is read to include any goods or services offered by a qualifying provider, plaintiffs may be able to plead “consumer” status based on non-video relationships—keeping more VPPA pixel cases in play and increasing litigation leverage where statutory damages are alleged.
The decision may be less about pixels than about who can sue.
Critically, the question presented is a gatekeeping issue of who is a “consumer” under the statute, rather than a comprehensive ruling on whether particular data flows constitute VPPA-prohibited “personally identifiable information” in every modern tracking context. Even so, clarifying “consumer” could materially influence case selection, pleading strategy, and dismissal dynamics in ongoing VPPA matters nationwide.
The broader takeaway
This case is poised to shape whether the VPPA continues to operate as a high-impact vehicle for litigating video-adjacent data practices in modern web and app ecosystems, or whether it is re-anchored to a more traditional, audiovisually centered conception of a “video consumer.” Either way, the decision is likely to affect VPPA litigation volume, venue considerations, and early dispositive motion strategy going forward.
[View source.]
