On January 26, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on the meaning of the term “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a federal law that prohibits “video tape service providers” from disclosing “personally identifiable information” regarding their “consumer[s].” 18 U.S. Code § 2710. The issue arose after Michael Salazar challenged the Sixth Circuit’s decision dismissing his class action accusing Paramount Global of illegally providing identifiable information of newsletter subscribers to Facebook. Salazar claimed that his subscription to a 247Sports e-newsletter qualifies him as a “consumer.” But since he did not subscribe to “audio visual materials,” the district court held that he was not a “consumer” and dismissed the complaint. The Sixth Circuit Court agreed and affirmed. Salazar v. Paramount Glob., 133 F.4th 642 (6th Cir. 2025).

Interestingly, the VPPA was enacted in the wake of the confirmation hearings for controversial Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, when on October 23, 1987, the United States Senate rejected Robert Bork’s appointment to the Supreme Court. While the decision did not hinge on this issue, a local video rental store had provided a list of his rental history to a Washington reporter prior to the vote.

Under the VPPA, personally identifiable information, such as someone’s name or address, cannot be kept by video tape service providers indefinitely and cannot be used against the consumer in court. Courts may also order safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of identification information.

The VPPA defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” There are however certain acceptable disclosures under the Act, such as disclosures to the consumer, with the consumer’s written consent or with a warrant, subpoena, or court order. Interestingly however, disclosure of such information is also permitted “… if such disclosure is incident to the ordinary course of business of the video tape service provider.”

Victims of a violation have two years to bring suit under the statute of limitations. Damages for a violation include $2500 actual damages per violation, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, preliminary relief and equitable relief.

Lutzker & Lutzker is available to help you navigate the legal landscape of data privacy and understand your privacy rights. For further reading from our website on the topics discussed here, see the following insights and IP Bits & Pieces®: Data Privacy in the Digital Hiring Era, YouTube’s Age Verification Policy and The First Amendment, USPTO Home Address Rule, Facial Recognition Technology and Its Application in Educational and Other Sensitive Settings, and our Privacy FAQs.