The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on a decades-old video privacy law that has implications for how online video platforms handle user data. The case, Salazar v. Paramount Global, centers on whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to online videos accessed through social media.
In 2022, Michael Salazar filed a class-action lawsuit against Paramount, alleging that the company had disclosed his viewing history on Facebook without consent. Salazar claimed he had signed up for an online newsletter and provided his email address, which was then used to target advertisements.
The law defines a consumer as anyone who rents, purchases, or subscribes to goods or services from a video tape service provider – including those offering similar audiovisual materials.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that the definition only applies to the sale of audio-visual content. In contrast, other courts have ruled differently - for example, in a case involving the National Basketball Association (NBA), the 2nd Circuit held that the law's phrase encompasses all products and services.
The Supreme Court is considering whether the phrase should extend beyond just audio-visual goods or services, potentially affecting how online platforms handle user data. Salazar argued that the court's decision would resolve an important question, given the current 2–2 circuit split on this issue. Paramount urged the court to decline the case, claiming that Salazar's claims would fail in other circuits due to different reasons.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for online video platforms and their handling of user data, potentially leading to changes in how they target advertisements based on viewing history.
In 2022, Michael Salazar filed a class-action lawsuit against Paramount, alleging that the company had disclosed his viewing history on Facebook without consent. Salazar claimed he had signed up for an online newsletter and provided his email address, which was then used to target advertisements.
The law defines a consumer as anyone who rents, purchases, or subscribes to goods or services from a video tape service provider – including those offering similar audiovisual materials.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that the definition only applies to the sale of audio-visual content. In contrast, other courts have ruled differently - for example, in a case involving the National Basketball Association (NBA), the 2nd Circuit held that the law's phrase encompasses all products and services.
The Supreme Court is considering whether the phrase should extend beyond just audio-visual goods or services, potentially affecting how online platforms handle user data. Salazar argued that the court's decision would resolve an important question, given the current 2–2 circuit split on this issue. Paramount urged the court to decline the case, claiming that Salazar's claims would fail in other circuits due to different reasons.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for online video platforms and their handling of user data, potentially leading to changes in how they target advertisements based on viewing history.
... think we're finally gonna get some clarity on whether our online vids are actually private or not 
... I mean, who doesn't love a good case study on user data and ad targeting? It's like, Paramount is trying to say Salazar's claims would fail in other circuits because of different reasons 
, but what if the law is actually more inclusive than we think? Would that change the game for us as consumers? 
It'd be sick if they finally decided on a clear definition... now we know how far our online viewing history is protected 
. I mean, come on, can't we have some control over who sees what we watch? It feels like every time you click on a video or browse through Facebook, they're tracking your every move and using it to sell you stuff that you don't even need! 
omg u guys the sc is gonna weigh in on this video privacy law that's been around since 88! 
like what even is that? so basically someone filed a lawsuit against paramount cuz they thought facebook was sharing his vid views with advertisers without consent... which btw sounds super shady lol. 
. 
. We need some transparency here! 
If the Supreme Court sides with Salazar, it could lead to some big changes for online platforms and how they use our viewing history to target ads. 
Maybe we'll see more transparency around what data is being collected and used? 
On the other hand, if the law stays as it is, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make - after all, most people already opt-in when they share their viewing history. 
Either way, it's gonna be interesting to see what the Court decides and how that affects our online experiences. 
?! i remember when i was a kid my parents were always like "don't watch that kind of stuff, you'll get reported to the authorities" 
and now we're dealing with social media platforms knowing our every move 
. It's also worth noting that this case has been ongoing since 2022, so it'll be interesting to see if the Supreme Court can provide some much-needed resolution to the uncertainty surrounding user data 
️.
... think about it - we're talking about our browsing habits and personal vids being shared with ad companies without our explicit consent. Not cool 
. It's all about finding that balance between user privacy and the ad economy 
. But on the other hand, if they extend the law too far, it could stifle innovation in the online video space 
. I'm thinking of this like a see-saw – you gotta balance user privacy with tech progress 
. Will the court tip the scales towards more user control or less? Only time will tell 
. But at the same time, I'm worried about how this will impact small creators and indie filmmakers who just wanna share their content online without being scrutinized all the time 
. The 2-2 circuit split is a bit frustrating, but ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision will be key to figuring out what's fair for everyone 
.
so this is what we've been waiting for - the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether or not our online browsing history is actually private... like it's that hard to keep track of 
). The whole thing just feels like a big mess - we've got Salazar arguing his case and Paramount pushing for them to dismiss it... sounds like they're both trying to avoid the real question: who's really in control of our online data? 