The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a hotly litigated case about the meaning of “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

Partner Joshua I. Hammack led the appellate team, with valuable assistance from Michael L. Murphy, Nicholas S. Johnson, Allison A. Bruff, and Hallie H. Arena, as well as paralegal support from Manny Rios. The matter will now proceed to merits briefing and argument before the Supreme Court.

The VPPA was enacted in 1988, shortly after a local D.C. video store disclosed the rental records of Judge Robert Bork—who was then under consideration for a seat on the Supreme Court—to a journalist. The law broadly prohibits a video tape service provider from knowingly disclosing a consumer's personally identifiable information without first obtaining that consumer's consent. As most relevant here, the VPPA defines "consumer" to include a "subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider."

In this case, Paramount disclosed Mr. Salazar's Facebook ID (a unique numerical identifier Facebook assigns to each user) and video-watching history to Facebook without his consent. Mr. Salazar sued, alleging Paramount's conduct violated the VPPA. But both lower courts held Mr. Salazar was not a statutory "consumer" because he subscribed only to Paramount's online newsletter, and not to its audiovisual goods or services. As a result, both lower courts dismissed his VPPA claim.

Bailey Glasser's appellate team has been litigating this question across the country for years now. Mr. Hammack has argued the issue to the Second, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits. In October 2024, the Second Circuit became the first appellate court to answer the question in the case of Salazar v. National Basketball Association. It held: "The phrase 'goods or services' in the VPPA is not cabined to audiovisual goods or services but also reaches the NBA's online newsletter." It reasoned that the term “consumer” “should be understood to encompass a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of any of the provider’s ‘goods or services’—audiovisual or not.” Learn more about the NBA case here.

But a 2-1 majority of a panel of the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the Second Circuit's ruling. The majority held that, when read in context, "goods or services" in the definition of "consumer" was limited to audiovisual goods or services. In dissent, Judge Bloomekatz agreed with the Second Circuit's analysis. The Supreme Court will now decide whether "goods or services from a video tape service provider" refers to all of a provider's goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.

This case, and the Court's answer to that question, will have significant implications for how streaming services and other platforms handle user data. And it will almost certainly affect the privacy rights of millions of Americans consumers.

Bailey Glasser’s Washington, D.C. office handling this case is Band 1 ranked by Chambers & Partners for its plaintiff-side work as well as top-ranked in commercial litigation and bet-the-company litigation by Best Law Firms®. Michael Murphy is Band 1-ranked by Chambers & Partners for his litigation work, and both Joshua and Michael were named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list. Joshua was also named a Benchmark Litigation 40 & Under Litigator in the appellate and commercial arenas, among other recognitions for both litigators.

To read the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, visit this link.

Media coverage about this important case includes:

Law360

Reuters