The Supreme Court has taken a critical step in addressing digital privacy by agreeing to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that revolves around the interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Originally passed to prevent public disclosure of videotape rental histories, the law now faces scrutiny in the digital era. This lawsuit originated when Michael Salazar, a digital subscriber to 247Sports.com—a site owned by Paramount Global—asserted that his video-viewing history and Facebook ID were shared with Facebook without his consent, which he argued was a violation of the VPPA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit previously dismissed his case, stating he did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Act. The Supreme Court’s review seeks to resolve discrepancies between lower courts on this interpretation and oral arguments are anticipated to be set for the 2026-27 term.
In a separate case concerning a Maryland man’s conviction, the Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court’s decision to order a new trial. The case, Klein v. Martin, deals with Charles Martin, who was convicted of attempted murder, but contested that crucial evidence was withheld during his trial. The evidence involved a laptop report indicating he had not researched gun silencers, as previously alleged. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit previously sided with Martin, suggesting the state’s failure to disclose this report warranted a retrial. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that federal scrutiny must be highly deferential to state court rulings under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The Court noted that prior judgments should only be overturned when state court decisions are contrary to, or unreasonably apply, established Supreme Court precedents. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, dissented, preferring to uphold the lower court’s ruling, though without a written opinion.
The outcomes of these Supreme Court decisions are expected to have lasting implications. In the case of Salazar, legal professionals and corporations alike are poised to reevaluate data sharing practices under digital privacy laws, while Martin illustrates the complexities of federal review in state convictions. As these cases evolve, they will undoubtedly continue to shape legal strategies and the broader landscape of privacy rights and criminal justice in the United States.