Supreme Court Hears Salazar v. Paramount: Does a Newsletter Subscriber Count as a “Consumer” Under the Video Privacy Law?
ANALYSIS · October 15, 2026
Slug: scotus-salazar-v-paramount-vppa-argument
Package note: This analysis is based on the official Supreme Court argument transcript for Salazar v. Paramount Global, d/b/a 247Sports, No. 25-459, argued October 14, 2026 (marked “Official - Subject to Final Review”). Oral argument is not a decision. Justices’ questions do not show how they will rule.
Primary sources
- Supreme Court of the United States, argument transcript, No. 25-459 (October 14, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-459_1a7d.pdf
The 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) lets a “consumer” sue a “video tape service provider” that knowingly discloses personally identifiable information about them. Michael Salazar alleges that Paramount, doing business as 247Sports, sent his video-viewing information to Facebook without consent. The lower courts in Tennessee, including the Sixth Circuit, dismissed his case because what he subscribed to was a newsletter, not video.
Core Tension
The case turns on one definition. “Consumer” means a renter, purchaser or subscriber of “goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Petitioner’s counsel Joshua Hammack argued that “goods or services” has no audiovisual limit, while the Act’s other definitions do, and that “That choice is dispositive.” Respondent’s counsel Paul Clement argued that reading in the defined term “video tape service provider” limits the goods or services to “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials.” Hammack told the Court the circuits are split 2-2 on the question. A ruling for Salazar would let anyone who subscribes to anything from a video-providing website sue over disclosures of their viewing data. A ruling for Paramount would limit those suits to people who subscribe to the video itself.
What the argument showed
| Speaker | Point (transcript) |
|---|---|
| Hammack | Paramount “systematically discloses personally identifiable information to Facebook without obtaining consent”; consent “was easy to get. Paramount just didn’t get it.” |
| Justice Thomas | Wouldn’t goods or services “from a video tape service provider” naturally be “video-related services”? |
| Chief Justice Roberts | Raised Justice Breyer’s “no pets in the park” hypothetical on reading statutes by purpose |
| Justice Barrett | Asked whether any company with a video on its site (e.g., Chick-fil-A) is a provider; Hammack said no |
| Justice Alito | Asked Hammack to address Clement’s point that his client subscribed only to a newsletter |
| Justice Kagan | To Clement: the definition “doesn’t say ‘audiovisual goods and services.’ Other definitions do have the modifier in them.” |
| Clement | Plugging the defined term into “consumer” points to “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials” |
| Order | Hammack (p. 3), Clement (p. 43), rebuttal (p. 90); 93 pages |
Claims check
| Claim | Assessment | Receipt |
|---|---|---|
| Case No. 25-459 argued Oct. 14, 2026 | Verified | Transcript cover |
| Circuits split 2-2 on “consumer” | Stated by counsel | Transcript, Hammack’s answer to a Justice’s question |
| Paramount shared data without consent | Allegation | The case was dismissed on the pleadings; no trial findings |
| How the Court will rule | Unknown | Decision expected by the end of the term |
How coverage splits
Not reviewed for this analysis.
Context / what to watch
- Decision: Expected by June 2027.
- Stakes: Many pending VPPA suits over tracking pixels on websites with videos.
Publish-ready ANALYSIS · written by KVOp from the Supreme Court transcript · 2026-10-15 · for /analysis/scotus-salazar-v-paramount-vppa-argument