"The central question is how to read the VPPA's phrase 'subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.' The justices are being asked whether it should be interpreted narrowly, to cover only subscribers of audiovisual services, or more broadly, to cover any subscription to a company that also publishes video."
"Before the case reached Washington, appellate panels around the country gave different answers to who counts as a VPPA 'consumer.' The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Salazar's suit, finding his newsletter subscription did not make him a VPPA 'consumer.'"
"Salazar alleges Paramount installed Meta's tracking Pixel on 247Sports, and that when he watched clips while logged into Facebook, Paramount's site quietly transmitted his viewing history and a Facebook identifier without his consent."
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, focusing on the Video Privacy Protection Act's applicability to modern tracking tools. Michael Salazar claims Paramount transmitted his viewing history to Facebook without consent. The court must interpret the VPPA's definition of 'subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.' Lower courts have disagreed on who qualifies as a VPPA 'consumer,' prompting the Supreme Court's involvement. The outcome could impact publishers and ad platforms regarding class-action exposure and tracking technology adjustments.
#supreme-court #video-privacy-protection-act #privacy-law #tracking-technology #class-action-lawsuits
Read at Hoodline
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]