⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court asks whether a newsletter subscriber can sue over the sharing of video-viewing information. Michael Salazar signed up for a free email newsletter from 247Sports, a Paramount website covering college sports. He also watched the site's free videos while logged into Facebook. His lawsuit alleges that tracking code called the Meta Pixel sent Facebook his account identifier and video-viewing details without his consent. He says the information supported targeted advertising. In twenty twenty-two, he sued for himself and other users under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Congress enacted that law in nineteen eighty-eight after the disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video-rental history. It restricts a covered provider's knowing disclosure of information linking a consumer to specific videos, with exceptions including informed written consent. A consumer includes a renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider. The district court dismissed Salazar's suit because his newsletter subscription was not enough; a divided Sixth Circuit affirmed. The question is whether the subscription must concern videos, or whether a non-video service from the same provider is enough. These are allegations at the pleading stage, not findings after a trial. Resolving the consumer definition would not by itself settle whether the tracking data qualifies as protected information. You will also hear about standing: a concrete personal injury caused by the defendant that a court can remedy. Amicus briefs are submissions from nonparties offering information or arguments to assist the Court. Joshua Hammack of Bailey and Glasser will argue for Salazar, asking the Court to set aside the dismissal.

Salazar v. Paramount Global (No. 25-459) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 14, 2026.