Salazar v. Paramount Global (25-459)
- Term
- OT 2026
- Certiorari granted
- 2026-01-26
- Court below
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Argued
- 2026-10-14
The case in brief
Facts
A federal law, the Video Privacy Protection Act, bars a "video tape service provider" from knowingly sharing a consumer's personally identifiable information without consent. Michael Salazar got a digital subscription to Paramount's sports website, 247Sports.com, by signing up for its online newsletter. He says Paramount shared his Facebook ID and the videos he watched with Facebook without his consent. A federal trial court dismissed his case, ruling that he was not a "consumer" under the law because he had not subscribed to audiovisual (video) products. A divided federal appeals court, the Sixth Circuit, agreed with the trial court, breaking with two other appeals courts that had decided nearly identical cases the other way, and Salazar then asked the Supreme Court to take the case.
Question
Under the law's definition of "consumer," does buying or subscribing to "goods or services from a video tape service provider" mean any product or service from that provider, or only its video and other audiovisual products?
Question Presented
Whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer,” refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.
Model prediction
Salazar 9-0 (60% confidence, raw). Calibrated to the historical base rate: Salazar 65%.
Case preview
Whether a person becomes a protected "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act by buying or subscribing to any product or service from a video provider (such as a non-video newsletter), or only by obtaining its video-related goods or services.
Salazar
- The petitioner argues that, in ordinary usage, the unmodified phrase "goods or services from a video tape service provider" covers everything a video provider offers, so a Paramount newsletter qualifies. He adds that the statute's repeated use of "any" consumer confirms the breadth.
- The petitioner argues that Congress used the narrower phrase "video materials or services" in the parallel definition of personally identifiable information. In his view, that deliberate variation shows Congress chose not to limit "consumer" to audiovisual transactions.
- The petitioner argues that the Sixth Circuit's audiovisual limitation leaves the word "video" and the phrase "requested or obtained" in the personally identifiable information definition with no independent work to do.
- The petitioner argues that the lower court's reading gives "goods or services" two different meanings within the VPPA. He notes it refers to all goods and services in another provision, and says no explanation was offered for the difference.
- The petitioner argues that an atextual audiovisual limitation leads to further judge-made tests. As examples, he points to asking whether a company was "acting" as a video provider in a given transaction, or whether a newsletter offers exclusive video access.
Paramount Global
- The respondent argues that the VPPA's interlocking definitions of video tape service provider, personally identifiable information, and consumer all refer to video materials and services. On that reading, one becomes a consumer only through the video transactions that generate protected information.
- The respondent argues that the petitioner reads "goods or services" in isolation and at its broadest dictionary meaning. It contends that canons such as meaningful variation, surplusage, and consistent usage do not overcome the statute's video-focused context.
- The respondent argues that the statute's consent provisions, especially the 2013 two-year advance-consent amendment, presuppose that a consumer has engaged in a video transaction that creates information to protect.
- The respondent argues that the statute's history and purpose focus on video-rental records. It cites the Bork disclosure and a Senate Report stating that a department store need protect only its videotape transactions.
- The respondent argues that the petitioner's reading would turn ordinary internet business models into sources of statutory damages. It says the reading would make protection for free video viewing depend on unrelated purchases and would create perverse incentives to collect consent and records.
How the case got here
Michael Salazar sued Paramount Global, owner of 247Sports.com, alleging it violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing his Facebook ID and video-viewing information to Facebook via the Facebook Pixel without his consent, after he subscribed to the site's online newsletter. The district court granted Paramount's motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that Salazar was not a "consumer" because he did not allege subscribing to audiovisual goods or services. A divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, with Judge Bloomekatz dissenting, holding that "goods or services" in the VPPA's definition of "consumer" is limited to audiovisual goods or services, and later denied rehearing en banc. The petitioner contends this decision conflicts with rulings of the Second and Seventh Circuits.
- Date not stated — United States District Court: Complaint filed alleging VPPA violation for disclosing personally identifiable information to Facebook without consent
- Date not stated — United States District Court: Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice; plaintiff held not to be a "consumer" under the VPPA; final judgment entered (683 F. Supp. 3d 727). Paramount
- 2025-04-03 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Divided panel affirmed dismissal (133 F.4th 642). Paramount
- 2025-05-13 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Petition for rehearing en banc denied. Paramount
- 2025-10-10 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
- 2025-12-15 — Supreme Court of the United States: Brief in opposition filed
- 2026-01-26 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
- 2026-08-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Wednesday, October 14, 2026.
- 2026-10-14 — Supreme Court of the United States: Argued
In the news
Interactive oral-argument transcript · Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.