US Supreme Court: Salazar v Paramount VPPA Internet Privacy for Digital Marketing

• The Supreme Court is reviewing *Salazar v. Paramount Global* to determine if the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to modern internet data sharing for targeted advertising.
• Plaintiff Michael Salazar alleges Paramount, owner of 247Sports, shared his personal information with Facebook for targeted ads after he subscribed to an online newsletter and viewed content while logged into Facebook.
• Salazar argues he is a 'subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider' under the VPPA, while Paramount contends the law was not intended for non-video transactions like newsletters.
• Industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association, warn that an expansive VPPA interpretation could classify nearly all internet users as 'consumers' due to ubiquitous online video content.
• The ruling will significantly impact compliance for companies involved in digital marketing and consumer data sharing, particularly those with video content on their platforms.

The central question now before the Supreme Court is whether this “Blockbuster-era privacy law” can be effectively adapted to the realities of the modern internet age.

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address the complex intersection of federal consumer privacy rights and modern digital marketing practices, specifically examining how companies' data sharing for targeted advertising aligns with existing law. The case, *Salazar v. Paramount Global*, centers on the applicability of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) to contemporary internet usage, a statute enacted nearly four decades ago.

Michael Salazar initiated the lawsuit against Paramount, the owner of 247Sports, alleging that his personal information, including his email address, was disclosed to Facebook for targeted advertising. Salazar claims this occurred because he was logged into his Facebook account while viewing content from the 247Sports website, after having subscribed to its online newsletter. His complaint asserts that Paramount's actions violated the VPPA, a law originally designed to protect individuals' video rental histories.

The Video Privacy Protection Act was signed into law in 1988, a direct response to a public incident involving Judge Robert Bork. A reporter had published an exposé detailing Bork's video rental history, an event that became known as “The Bork Tapes.” While the reporter's intent was to comment on Bork's controversial views on privacy, the widespread public reaction solidified a broad congressional consensus regarding the importance of protecting consumers' personal information.

Today, privacy protections remain a significant concern for Americans. This enduring concern has fueled a recent surge in litigation, with plaintiffs attempting to leverage the 1988 VPPA to challenge companies engaged in selling consumer data for targeted advertising. The central question now before the Supreme Court is whether this “Blockbuster-era privacy law” can be effectively adapted to the realities of the modern internet age.

At the heart of the dispute are differing interpretations of the VPPA's scope. Michael Salazar contends that he qualifies as a “consumer” under the statute, defined as “any renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” He argues that Congress deliberately chose ordinary language for the law, devoid of secondary or idiosyncratic meanings, even referencing a line from Paramount's film “Mean Girls” to underscore his point about plain language. Salazar asserts that Paramount functions as a “video tape service provider” and his subscription to its online newsletter means the service originated “from a video tape service provider,” with the newsletter itself fitting the definition of “goods or services.”

Paramount, conversely, argues that the VPPA was never intended to cover non-video transactions, such as an online newsletter. The media giant claims that Salazar's expansive reading inappropriately repurposes the VPPA, pulling it from its original, relatively obscure context to target companies for what it considers routine business practices. Paramount highlights a trend of class-action lawsuits brought against diverse entities, including La-Z-Boy and Chick-fil-A, simply because they market non-video goods or services but also feature free promotional or instructional video clips online. The company expresses concern that these putative class actions can be initiated at no cost, merely by signing up for a free marketing email from any business with a website containing video content.

These concerns are echoed by industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association, which submitted an amicus brief. The MPA warns that an overly broad interpretation of the VPPA would effectively classify nearly everyone as a “consumer” under the act, given the pervasive nature of video content across the internet. They further point out that companies selling video content are often part of larger corporate structures with extensive and varied business operations, citing an example of an individual purchasing groceries from Whole Foods (owned by Amazon.com, Inc.) and then watching a free video about a yoga mat from Amazon.com, Inc.

The Supreme Court's decision in *Salazar v. Paramount Global* holds significant implications for `digital marketing data privacy` and `Supreme Court targeted advertising` practices. Digital privacy advocates are pushing for a robust application of the VPPA to modern internet activities, advocating for stricter enforcement of consumer protections. Conversely, companies caution against an overextension of the statute, fearing it could disrupt the broader internet ecosystem.

This case will clarify the extent to which the `Video Privacy Protection Act`, a `Blockbuster-era privacy law`, applies to contemporary `consumer data sharing lawsuits` involving online platforms and `targeted advertising`. The outcome will directly impact compliance requirements and potential litigation exposure for companies engaged in digital marketing, particularly those that incorporate any form of video content within their broader business operations.

Lawyers and compliance officers should closely monitor the Supreme Court's ruling in *Salazar v. Paramount*. The decision will clarify the applicability of the Video Privacy Protection Act to modern internet data sharing for targeted advertising, significantly impacting compliance requirements and potential litigation exposure for companies engaged in digital marketing, particularly those with any video content.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News