Updated October 13, 2026, 9:08 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON – A 1988 privacy law from the videotape era will collide with the modern digital age before the Supreme Court on Oct. 14.
How the justices approach the case could have far-reaching consequences for large swathes of the Internet that rely on targeted advertising — and for the Internet users who are the targets of those ads.
The law in question, the Video Privacy Protection Act, was enacted in response to Washington City Paper’s decision to publish a list of 146 movies rented at a local video store by Robert Bork, who had been nominated by President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Supreme Court. Outrage over the disclosure prompted Congress to impose heavy penalties on any videotape service provider that discloses a customer’s personally identifiable information.
Nearly 30 years later, the court must decide if and how this law applies to websites. The California man at the center of the case says yes.
Michael Salazar used his free digital subscription to 247Sports.com, owned by Paramount Global, to watch college sports videos. He was then connected to Facebook. Like many websites that offer content outside of a paywall, 247Sports makes money through advertising. Online tracking tools inserted into the web page send information about the user to a third party – in this case, Facebook’s parent company Meta.
Salazar is seeking to file a class-action lawsuit against Paramount under the Video Privacy Act, arguing that the law prohibits Paramount from sharing its video viewing history and other personal information with Meta to create targeted ads in its feed.
The case pits privacy advocates against big companies and a widely used business model.
“Status of the Blockbuster Era”
Paramount says Salazar is suing to get a “massive windfall” by turning a “Blockbuster-era law” about video rental history into an unworkable Internet privacy regime.
Any content viewed by Salazar was available for free, Paramount’s lawyers wrote in a filing, making 247Sports “a completely different business from videocassette rental.” Essentially, they argue that watching a free video does not make someone a “consumer” within the meaning of the law and therefore privacy protections do not apply.
The news media organizations said in documents supporting Paramount that tracking video viewers is a routine part of their business model that allows them to offer content to the public for free.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the court that the case could abolish the targeted advertising model that funds much of the Internet.
Privacy advocates, meanwhile, say the law is even more important today because video streaming services have become ubiquitous, dramatically increasing the amount and types of personal data that can be collected about viewers.
Americans concerned about online data use
Data from the Pew Research Center shows that Americans are confused and concerned about how their online data is used. More than seven in ten Americans surveyed in 2023 said they have little or no control over what companies do with their data.
“We have seen a massive proliferation of online tracking and profiling over the past several decades,” said Sara Geoghegan, an attorney at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who filed a brief in support of Salazar. “We don’t have a general, comprehensive federal privacy law. But we do have this specific law that protects video viewing habits.”
Geoghegan said there is still plenty of other valuable data for businesses that website operators can collect. Companies may also use their own customer information to serve advertisements or obtain consent from viewers for targeted advertisements.
“There are many ways to serve ads online that do not require these illegal disclosures,” she said.
Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit
The legal debate centers on whether privacy protections kick in only when someone specifically signs up or pays to watch a video.
An appeals court threw out Salazar’s lawsuit, ruling that subscribing to an online newsletter giving Salazar access to videos is not the same as subscribing to actual audiovisual content.
The law protects “any lessee, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a videotape service provider.”
Salazar’s lawyers say the term “goods or services” covers anything a company offers, including a free newsletter.
Paramount’s lawyers say that when the phrase “goods and services” is read in context with the rest of the law, it is clear that the protections apply only to the rental, purchase or subscription of audiovisual material.
Josh Robbins, an attorney at the Libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation, said Paramount’s theory could be persuasive in a court that has often opposed broad interpretations of the law.
“I expect there will probably be a continued trend toward this narrower, more contextual reading of laws in order to limit their scope,” he said.
A decision in the case of Salazar v. Paramount Global is expected by the end of June.
Gn bussni
