Who Counts as a Consumer

The Supreme Court hears argument on Wednesday 14 October in Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459, a case about a 1988 statute and a sports-recruiting newsletter. The docket set the argument for that date on 4 August. The dispute is over one definition: who counts as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act.

Congress passed the Act after a weekly paper published a list of the videos Judge Robert Bork, then a Supreme Court nominee, had rented from his local store, as SCOTUSblog’s preview recounts. The law bars a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information “concerning any consumer of such provider,” 18 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1). It defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider,” 2710(a)(1). The case is about how much the words “goods or services” cover.

The facts

In 2022 Michael Salazar subscribed to an email newsletter from 247Sports.com, a Paramount-owned site that covers college sports recruiting. He says that while logged in to Facebook he watched videos on the site, and that Paramount, through a tracking code known as the Pixel, sent Facebook his Facebook ID and the videos he had watched, without his consent. He sued in federal court in Nashville on behalf of a proposed class. The statute lets a court award actual damages “but not less than liquidated damages in an amount of $2,500,” along with punitive damages and fees, so a plaintiff need not prove a dollar loss to put a figure on each claim.

Paramount’s answer does not depend on whether the disclosure happened. Both lower courts assumed Paramount is a video tape service provider and that the data was personally identifiable, according to the question presented. The issue is whether Salazar is a protected person at all. What he subscribed to was a newsletter, not a video service.

Two readings of one phrase

Judge Eli Richardson dismissed the suit, ruling that a consumer must subscribe to goods or services “in the nature of audio-visual content.” A divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed in April 2025. Writing for the majority, Judge John Nalbandian asked: “Is ‘goods or services’ limited to audio-visual content—or does it extend to any and all products or services that a store could provide?” The majority chose the narrower answer, holding that the phrase is cabined by its association with the rest of the definition. Judge Rachel Bloomekatz dissented, writing that by the definition’s plain text Salazar is a consumer.

Salazar’s reading is that the statute limits the source of the goods or services, not their type. His brief points to the last Blockbuster store, in Bend, Oregon, which rents films but also sells candles, sunglasses, posters and dog bandanas, and argues that anyone who bought one of those would ordinarily be called Blockbuster’s consumer. He notes that Congress tied the definition of personally identifiable information to “video materials or services,” which in his view shows it knew how to impose that limit and chose not to for “goods or services.”

Paramount’s reading starts from purpose. “No one cared about Judge Bork’s purchases of bandanas or recliners,” its brief says, and a buyer of non-video goods does not generate the video records the Act protects. Its brief, filed by Paul Clement, argues that Salazar’s reading “would transform a 1988 video-rental statute into an unworkable internet-privacy regime of broad yet incoherent scope backed by harsh penalties,” and that suits like this one are part of a wave of class actions against ordinary businesses that post video online.

Why the Court took it

The courts of appeals had split two against two. In October 2024 the Second Circuit, in a separate case brought by the same plaintiff against the National Basketball Association, held that the phrase is not limited to audiovisual goods or services. In March 2025 the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook, held that “any purchase or subscription from a ‘video tape service provider’ satisfies the definition of ‘consumer,’ even if the thing purchased is clothing or the thing subscribed to is a newsletter.” The Sixth Circuit then ruled the other way in this case, and the D.C. Circuit later sided with the Sixth, according to Salazar’s petition. That left Salazar on both sides of the split.

The Court granted review on 26 January. Salazar filed his merits brief on 17 April, Paramount answered on 23 June and the reply came on 23 July. Friend-of-the-court briefs filed alongside Paramount’s came from, among others, the Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association, the News/Media Alliance and Meta; the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed alongside Salazar. Joshua Hammack is counsel of record for Salazar.

The definition decides a great deal before any fact is tried. If a newsletter subscriber is a consumer, every subscriber to a video-hosting company’s non-video product can plead a claim worth at least $2,500 per violation. If not, the Act stays tied to people who rent, buy or subscribe to video. What the justices cannot do on Wednesday is settle whether a 1988 statute ought to reach a tracking pixel on a sports website. They can only say what its words already cover.