Supreme Court Weighs If 1988 Video Law Bans Ad Tracking Data

The US Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a 1988 federal privacy law prohibits companies from sharing users’ video viewing history with advertisers without consent. This case could fundamentally alter how digital platforms collect and monetize personal data through targeted advertising.

The risk

The central legal question involves the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act, originally designed for physical videotape rentals. According to CNET, the case stems from a 2022 class action lawsuit filed by Michael Salazar against Paramount Global. Salazar signed up for a newsletter from 247Sports.com, a Paramount-owned site, and watched videos while logged into Facebook. A Meta tracking pixel on the site transmitted his viewing data to Facebook without his permission.

Who is exposed

Paramount Global argues that the definition of a "consumer" in the act does not include subscribers to free digital newsletters. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected the lawsuit based on this interpretation. However, Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Paramount’s position. According to Bloomberg Law, the company’s arguments did not persuade the justices during the hearing.

Cost and compliance

If the Court rules for Salazar, websites using tracking tools on video pages could face widespread class-action litigation. Salazar is seeking up to $2,500 per person in damages. Paramount’s lawyer, Paul Clement, warned that a broad interpretation would turn a rental law into a sweeping internet privacy regime. This might force sites to place videos behind consent walls, altering user experiences across the web.

What should you do?

Legal and compliance teams should review how video content is tracked on company-owned websites. Organizations must assess whether current consent mechanisms satisfy potential interpretations of federal privacy laws. Monitor the Supreme Court’s ruling, expected next summer, as it will dictate future compliance requirements for ad-tech integrations.

The background in plain language

This case hinges on how courts interpret old laws in new digital contexts. The Video Privacy Protection Act was created to stop video stores from sharing rental histories. Now, plaintiffs argue it should stop websites from sharing digital viewing data. Teams usually evaluate whether legacy statutes apply to modern software practices. Understanding this helps developers anticipate broader regulatory shifts. Companies should check whether their data collection methods rely on assumptions that courts might reject. This requires careful review of user agreements and tracking technologies.

What to do and how to stay safe: Video Privacy Protection Act

• Audit video pages for third-party tracking pixels that transmit user data without explicit consent.
• Review privacy policies to ensure they clearly describe how viewing history is shared with advertising partners.
• Monitor legal developments regarding the Video Privacy Protection Act for changes in compliance obligations.
• Consult legal counsel on whether current consent mechanisms meet potential future court interpretations.

Step-by-step guide: Smartphone Privacy Settings: What They Hide and What They Leak

General security guidance from the Vector Tribune newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Supreme Court case Salazar v. Paramount Global about?

It concerns whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act applies to digital video viewing data shared with advertisers without consent.

Did the Supreme Court justices seem to side with Paramount?

No, according to Bloomberg Law, Paramount’s arguments did not persuade the justices during the hearing.

What could happen if Salazar wins the case?

A win could open the door to more class-action lawsuits against sites that use tracking tools on video pages.