Supreme Court Weighs Whether 1988 Video Privacy Law Shields Online Newsletter Readers

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether a federal video privacy law enacted in 1988 protects people whose online video viewing habits are tracked and shared with advertisers. The dispute arises from a lawsuit filed by a Tennessee man who discovered that his online sports newsletter subscription led to his personal viewing information being shared with Facebook.

Michael Salazar sued 247Sports owner Paramount after he signed up for the site’s online newsletter and provided his email address. Because Salazar remained logged into his Facebook account while watching video content on the website, Paramount disclosed his browsing details to the social media company for targeted advertising. Salazar argued that this data transfer violated the Video Privacy Protection Act.

Applying a 1980s Video Store Law to Modern Websites

Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988 to stop companies from disclosing customer video rental records without permission. Lawmakers took action after a reporter obtained and published the video rental history of judicial nominee Robert Bork. Nearly four decades later, Salazar asked the justices to apply those exact same statutory protections to modern digital media.

Under the statute, a protected consumer includes any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider. During Wednesday’s argument, the justices appeared open to the idea that modern website subscribers qualify as consumers just like customers who rented tapes from physical stores in the 1980s. Justice Elena Kagan noted that embarrassing viewing habits could easily be revealed today if a subscriber watches videos on a sports website after signing up for a newsletter.

Questions Over Who Qualifies as a Video Provider

Paramount pushed back, warning that Salazar’s interpretation would classify virtually every web user as a protected consumer because video content is now everywhere online. The company also pointed out that modern firms selling video content are frequently parts of sprawling corporate enterprises with diverse business activities.

Several justices voiced concern that expanding the law could trigger sweeping litigation against routine commercial practices. Some members of the bench questioned whether companies like Chick-fil-A might face liability simply because they display promotional videos on their websites. While the bench leaned toward viewing Salazar as a consumer, justices showed skepticism over whether 247Sports fits the statutory definition of a video tape service provider. Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that what has evolved since the 1980s is both the nature of personal identifying data and the types of companies that resemble traditional video stores.

Obtaining User Consent Could Shield Digital Platforms

Despite corporate concerns about widespread lawsuits, members of the high court highlighted a straightforward alternative for digital publishers. Companies could avoid legal liability altogether by asking users for permission before transmitting their information to third parties.

Addressing the potential burden on companies, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked during the hearing that “the cure is pretty simple,” pointing out that companies could adapt by obtaining consent from individuals who watch videos on their platforms.

What the Dispute Means for Everyday Internet Users

This case could determine whether companies can freely transmit your browsing and video viewing records to advertising networks without your clear authorization. If the Supreme Court rules that online newsletter subscribers are protected consumers under federal law, digital platforms that share video consumption history with data brokers or social media networks may face significant legal hurdles.

For everyday users, the case highlights the ongoing privacy risks of browsing the web while logged into major social media accounts like Facebook. Internet users concerned about tracking can review their account data-sharing settings and limit third-party tracking permissions across the platforms they use.

People who believe an online service shared their private browsing habits or video viewing history with third-party advertisers without consent may want to speak with a privacy or consumer protection attorney to evaluate their legal options.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 14, 2026.