The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Salazar v. Paramount Global, a lawsuit involving allegations that Paramount Global violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing a Tennessee man’s video-watching data with Facebook. The VPPA was originally enacted in response to privacy concerns arising from the unauthorized release of video rental records during the Bork nomination saga in the late 1980s. The law defines a “video tape service provider” as a company that rents, sells, or delivers video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials.
At the heart of the case is whether Paramount Global’s website, 247Sports.com, qualifies as a “video tape service provider” because it streams videos online. Chief among the points raised during the session was whether the term “video tape service provider” reasonably extends to modern streaming services that differ from the video rental stores of the 1980s. Justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed doubts about drawing parallels between internet streaming and traditional video rentals.
The arguments also revolved around whether entities such as Paramount, with their range of digital services, are liable under a law designed for a different technological era. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the practical applicability of a vintage legal terminus to contemporary digital platforms, suggesting that simply displaying videos online might not equate to providing audiovisual content in the manner intended by the original act.
The specter of widespread litigation against companies providing any form of video content was a concern highlighted by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. However, the court considered potential safeguards, such as requiring consumer consent before sharing personal information, as a way for companies to preempt such legal challenges.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested the court focus on statutory intent, underlining that the case seems aligned with the privacy protection goals Congress envisioned. Kagan proposed scenarios where disclosing video-watch histories could lead to individual embarrassment, marking such situations as the exact kind Congress wanted to shield consumers from.
A key issue remains whether Salazar has the standing to bring the lawsuit, a point debated by Justice Barrett who questioned the nature of Paramount’s data sharing with Facebook. The decision, anticipated next year, will likely hinge on these pivotal interpretations of a statute enacted before the ubiquitous rise of digital streaming platforms. The full arguments and details of the proceedings can be accessed through the Supreme Court’s oral argument records.