Michael Salazar, Petitioner v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports
The Court will consider whether the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law originally enacted to protect videotape rental records, applies to modern streaming services and their collection of viewer data. The case tests whether someone must be a subscriber to audiovisual content specifically to have standing under the Act.
- Status
- Before Arguments
- Appeal from
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Review granted
- Jan 26, 2026
Case briefing
Case snapshot
How does a sports website's tracking pixel violate federal privacy law?
Michael Salazar sued Paramount Global after a tracking pixel on 247Sports.com shared his video-viewing history with Facebook. The Court must decide if the Video Privacy Protection Act covers anyone who gets any 'goods or services' from a provider, or only those who get video-specific services.
Will your online newsletter subscriptions expose your video viewing habits?
This case could change how much privacy you have when watching videos on websites that also offer newsletters or articles. If the Court rules for Paramount, companies might have more freedom to share your data with third parties without your permission.
Can a 1980s law for VHS rentals protect digital privacy today?
Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988 after a reporter leaked a Supreme Court nominee's video rental records. Now, the Court is trying to figure out how to apply that old law to modern internet tracking and streaming services.
What are the arguments regarding the definition of a video consumer?
No substantive justice or advocate reactions are available yet.
What is the core dispute between Michael Salazar and Paramount Global?
The Court will decide if a 1980s privacy law protects modern internet users who subscribe to digital newsletters and watch online videos.
When will the Supreme Court hear arguments on digital video privacy?
The case is currently in the early stages after the Court granted certiorari (the decision to hear the case). The next major milestone is oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court.
How did Michael Salazar's video history end up being shared with Facebook?
Salazar watched videos on 247Sports.com while he was logged into his Facebook account. Paramount had installed a tracking pixel that automatically sent his viewing data to the social media giant.
Who counts as a 'consumer' under the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act?
This is the central question the Supreme Court must answer. The law defines a consumer as someone who gets 'goods or services,' but it is unclear if that includes non-video services like digital newsletters.
Why is Paramount Global being sued instead of a video rental store?
Paramount owns 247Sports.com, which provides video content alongside sports news. Since physical video rental stores are rare today, the law is being tested against digital media companies that host video.
What is the specific legal phrase the justices are looking at?
The justices are focusing on the phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider.' They need to decide if this means any service or only services related to audiovisual content.
What happens if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Paramount Global?
A ruling for Paramount could limit the number of people who can sue for privacy violations under this law. It might mean that only people who pay for video-specific subscriptions are protected.
Where things stand
Timeline
Source note
How this page is sourced
Official case materials anchor this page. Reporting is used only to add context and explain the dispute in plain English.
Page data last refreshed Mar 31, 2026.
Context reporting
Primary materials
Documents & resources
Recent coverage
In the news
More to watch