https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/01/us-supreme-court-to-decide-if-1988-video-tape-privacy-law-applies-to-internet-uses/ Jurist DONATE NOW * News V + All Legal News + US Legal News + World Legal News + This Day @ Law * Dispatches V + All Dispatches + Afghanistan + Canada + EU + Ghana + India + Iran + Israel + Kazakhstan + Kenya + Myanmar + Pakistan + Peru + Sri Lanka + UK + Ukraine + US * Commentary V + All Commentary + Faculty Commentary + Professional Commentary + Student Commentary * Features V + All Features + Explainers + Long Reads + Multimedia + Interviews * Topics * Rule of Law V + Materials + Podcasts * About V + FAQ + Staff + Awards + Apply + Journalist in Residence + Board of Directors + Contact Us * Donate V + Why Support JURIST? + Donate + Honor Roll Search: [ ] Search US Supreme Court to decide if 1988 video tape privacy law applies to internet uses News Amtrak Guy 124, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons US Supreme Court to decide if 1988 video tape privacy law applies to internet uses Ben Golin | U. Nevada School of Law, US January 26, 2026 09:38:22 pm The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that asks whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to users who sign up for newsletters from websites that use Meta's tracking technology. The lawsuit accuses Paramount Global of violating the VPPA by disclosing digital subscribers' identities and video media information, without proper consent, to Facebook for targeted advertising purposes. Paramount Global runs 247Sports.com, through which plaintiff Michael Salazar had subscribed to a free email newsletter and viewed video clips. The website utilized Meta Pixel, which allegedly sent Salazar's Facebook ID and browsing data to Facebook after his engagement with the site. The case asks whether a person has to rent, purchase, or subscribe specifically to video content to be considered a "consumer," or whether subscribing to any services, such as a free newsletter, triggers VPPA protections Congress enacted the VPPA after a journalist published then-nominee Robert Bork's video rental history during his contentious 1988 Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The statute prohibits "video tape service providers" from disclosing "personally identifiable information" about "consumers" who rent, purchase, or subscribe to their services. Last April, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with Paramount in a 2-1 decision, holding that Salazar was not a "consumer" under the VPPA because he only subscribed to a free email newsletter rather than to "goods or services in the nature of video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials." The majority opinion held that while "goods or services" might seem broad in isolation, the statutory context and the definition of "video tape service provider" limit its application. The dissent argued that the majority improperly rewrote the VPPA by adding limitations Congress did not include in the plain text. Paramount has argued that the VPPA is a "Blockbuster-era statute" designed to protect video rental records and does not regulate modern internet advertising-that 247Sports is not a video rental store or streaming service and therefore not a "video tape service provider." The company claims Salazar is not a "consumer" because he signed up for a free email newsletter rather than renting, purchasing, or subscribing to actual video content. Salazar's claims would likely fail in certain federal appellate courts that have rejected similar pixel-based claims, reasoning that shared computer code doesn't qualify as "personally identifiable information." The case comes during growing concern over data privacy. Last month, Austria's Supreme Court ruled that Meta's personalized advertising model practices violate EU data protection law. Last February, Canada opened an investigation into X/Twitter to determine if its data collection for AI training models violates Canadian privacy laws. Law students to join jurist GET OUR DAILY DIGEST Email Address [ ] Subscribe Key: [ ] Subscribe LinkedIn YouTube Instagram Facebook RSS Twitter Latest DISPATCHES Canada dispatch: Montreal activist Yves Engler found guilty over email campaign to police, original harassment charge dropped Canada dispatch: Montreal activist Yves Engler found guilty over email campaign to police, original harassment charge dropped SCOTUS dispatch: Justices consider Trump’s power to fire fed governor SCOTUS dispatch: Justices consider Trump's power to fire fed governor Latest COMMENTARY Why Transferring TikTok to US Control Misses the Point Why Transferring TikTok to US Control Misses the Point by Deborah Brown and Brian Root | Human Rights Watch The Rohingya Crisis in Court: A Guide to the ICJ Proceedings The Rohingya Crisis in Court: A Guide to the ICJ Proceedings by Arnav Laroia and Ria Garg | West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Latest FEATURES Interview with a UK National Security Lawyer: ‘We’re not here to deter them from following their conscience in the face of genocide.’ Interview with a UK National Security Lawyer: 'We're not here to deter them from following their conscience in the face of genocide.' ‘Lethal Injection is Based on the Illusion of Science’: An Interview with Law Professor Corinna Barrett Lain 'Lethal Injection is Based on the Illusion of Science': An Interview with Law Professor Corinna Barrett Lain THIS DAY @ LAW First US execution by gas On February 8, 1924, Gee Jon, a Chinese man convicted of murder, was executed by gas in Nevada and became the first person in the United States to be put to death in that manner. The Nevada state legislature had eliminated hanging and shooting as a method of execution in 1921, and had provided for execution by lethal gas instead. Nevada sent 32 convicts to the gas chamber between 1924 and 1979. Learn more about the history of executions by gas in Nevada . Mary, Queen of Scots executed On February 8, 1587, Mary I of Scotland was executed for involvement in a plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England. Before execution, Mary denied three times assisting the Babington Plot to murder her cousin, Queen Elizabeth, and crown Mary as ruler of Great Britain. Mary's guilt or innocence is debated to this day. Learn more about the Babington Plot. Jurist Home Attributions Disclaimer Privacy Policy Contact Us Copyright (c) 2026, JURIST Legal News & Research Services, Inc. JURISTnews is a collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh