The justices heard arguments on Wednesday, October 14 about whether people can sue when a website secretly tells Facebook which videos they watched.
Story Snapshot
- The case, Salazar v. Paramount Global, is a fight over a 1988 video privacy law.
- A sports fan says Paramount’s 247Sports site sent Facebook his account ID and the videos he played, without asking him.
- The key question is whether signing up for a company’s free newsletter makes you a protected “consumer.”
- Most justices seemed open to reviving his suit. A decision is not expected until 2027.
What The Justices Are Weighing
The Video Privacy Protection Act bars a video provider from sharing records that show who watched which videos without the viewer’s written consent. It protects any “renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Lower courts said Michael Salazar did not count, because what he signed up for was a free email newsletter, not videos. The Supreme Court agreed in January to settle the question after federal appeals courts split on it.
Salazar, a college sports fan, subscribed to the 247Sports newsletter in 2022 and then watched videos on the site while logged into Facebook. He says a Meta Pixel, a tiny piece of hidden tracking code, quietly sent Facebook his ID and the videos he watched. According to reporting on the case, the code works in the background, and ordinary cookie settings do not block it. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, uses such data to target ads.
Why The Newsletter Status Matters
Paramount’s lawyer, Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general (the government’s top lawyer before the Supreme Court), argued the law covers only people who rent, buy or subscribe to videos. He called the suit a “systematic weaponization” of a narrow law and warned that almost any website with a video could be sued. Justice Samuel Alito called it “a law that is based on the technology of the 1980s.”
Salazar’s lawyer, Joshua Hammack, said Congress wrote “goods or services,” not “audiovisual goods or services,” so a newsletter counts. Justice Elena Kagan said a company can stay clear of the law by getting consent or by not sharing the data. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she saw little reason why a viewer’s protection should depend on which product first connected him to the company.
What Reviving The Case Could Mean For Your Privacy
Think about the sites where you watch a highlight clip or a news video. Sites that run this kind of tracking code can pair your Facebook account with the exact video on your screen. If the justices side with Salazar, signing up for a newsletter could be enough to bring that viewing under the law’s protection, and sites would need your consent before sharing it. A win for Salazar would send his case back to the lower courts to be tested on the facts.
The law allows $2,500 in damages for each violation, plus legal fees, and viewers do not have to prove they lost money. Hundreds of similar lawsuits in lower courts have been put on hold while this case is decided. Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed both sides on whether a broad reading would open the floodgates to lawsuits, but he also called consent a simple fix that companies have on hand.
How Conservatives Should Read This Fight
Americans expect companies to respect their privacy online. The law at issue is plain: do not hand out a person’s viewing history without consent. The justices focused on the words Congress wrote and on who counts as a consumer. If the case is revived, lower courts can then test consent, proof of sharing, and whether Paramount’s site counts as a video provider under the law.
Big Tech often treats your data like its product. The law treats it like yours. Families should not have to trade their private lives for free videos and newsletters. If the justices send this case back, companies will need to ask first rather than quietly track what people watch. The justices are expected to rule in 2027.
Sources:
techtimes.com, supremecourt.gov, paulweiss.com