ONE WORD, FOUR CIRCUITS: Supreme Court to Resolve VPPA Circuit Split Over Who Qualifies as a “Consumer”

Hi TCPAWorld!

Who counts as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act? You would think that question has a simple answer. But federal appellate courts are divided, and the Supreme Court is now stepping in.

The Court will hear argument in Salazar v. Paramount Global on October 14, 2026. The core issue is whether a subscription must involve audiovisual goods or services to establish consumer status under the VPPA or whether a subscription to a non-video offering, such as a newsletter, is enough. That distinction could significantly affect litigation exposure for businesses that use tracking pixels and offer video content.

The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing a “consumer’s” personally identifiable information concerning the video materials or services the consumer obtained or requested, subject to statutory exceptions. The statute defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The disagreement comes down to what Congress meant by “goods or services.”

The Second and Seventh Circuits read that language broadly. In Salazar v. NBA and Gardner v. Me-TV, those courts concluded that the subscription does not have to be for video content. They reasoned that Congress did not limit “goods or services” to audiovisual offerings. A newsletter subscription can therefore qualify, even if the subscriber watches videos separately on the provider’s website.

The Sixth and D.C. Circuits take a narrower approach. They read the definition in the context of the VPPA’s focus on video privacy and require an audiovisual connection. In Salazar v. Paramount Global, Salazar subscribed to 247Sports.com’s newsletter and alleged that Paramount shared his video-viewing information with Facebook through its tracking Pixel without consent. The Sixth Circuit held that the newsletter subscription alone was insufficient. His allegations did not adequately connect the subscription to audiovisual materials. The D.C. Circuit took the narrower approach in Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper Publishing Company.

That leaves businesses facing different interpretations of the same federal statute depending on where a lawsuit is filed.

This matters because the VPPA allows actual damages subject to a $2,500 liquidated-damages floor, along with potential punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. In a class action, the financial stakes can add up quickly. 

If the Supreme Court adopts the broader reading, potential claimants could include newsletter subscribers and other qualifying customers whose relationship with the business has little to do with video. If it adopts the narrower reading, claims based solely on those non-video relationships could fail. Under either interpretation, plaintiffs still must establish a prohibited disclosure and the other requirements for liability, and any proposed class must satisfy class-certification requirements.

For companies that offer videos, collect subscriber information, and use tracking technology, Salazar deserves attention. The Supreme Court’s answer could change who can sue and how much is at stake.

We will keep you posted with updates as they come. Until next time, TCPAWorld!