Signing up for a sports newsletter shouldn’t feel like surrendering your digital privacy, yet here we are. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case that could determine whether a law written during the VHS era protects your data when websites track what videos you watch online.
Michael Salazar thought he was just getting college recruiting updates from 247Sports.com—instead, he discovered Meta Pixel was sharing his viewing habits with Facebook for targeted ads.
When Video Store Privacy Meets Digital Tracking
The 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act wasn’t designed for Meta Pixel, but it might be your best defense against web tracking.
Salazar’s lawsuit against Paramount Global centers on whether subscribing to a free newsletter makes you a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act when that website hosts video content. Meta Pixel—the invisible tracking code millions of websites use—allegedly disclosed his Facebook ID and viewing data without consent.
The VPPA, born from Robert Bork’s embarrassing video rental history leak during his Supreme Court nomination, prohibits video service providers from sharing personally identifiable information about what you watch.
Courts Can’t Agree on Who Counts as a “Consumer”
A circuit split has emerged over whether newsletter subscribers deserve the same privacy protection as Netflix users.
The Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 that Salazar wasn’t a “consumer” because he only subscribed to a text newsletter, not actual video services. The majority argued context limits VPPA to audiovisual subscriptions, despite the law’s broader “goods or services” language.
But other federal circuits interpret VPPA more expansively, creating the exact kind of legal chaos that demands Supreme Court intervention. The dissent argued plain text makes any subscriber to a video provider’s services a protected consumer—no audiovisual requirement needed.
The Stakes Reach Far Beyond One Sports Website
This ruling could either unleash a torrent of privacy lawsuits or slam the door on web tracking protection.
A narrow Supreme Court ruling would essentially gut VPPA class actions against websites using tracking pixels. As one expert noted, affirmation “will defeat yet another attempt by the plaintiff’s bar to penalize companies who host audio visual content.”
But a broad interpretation could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits against any website that combines video content with user tracking—think YouTube, news sites, or streaming platforms that collect data through newsletters or account signups.
From Blockbuster Shelves to Browser Cookies
A 1980s privacy scandal might reshape how websites track your viewing in 2026.
The irony cuts deep: a law created because senators feared their video rental choices becoming public could now govern how Facebook learns what TikToks you watch. Paramount argues VPPA is outdated “Blockbuster-era” legislation never intended for internet advertising, but privacy advocates see it as prescient protection for the streaming age.
Your digital privacy hangs in the balance of whether nine justices think a 1988 law can handle 2026 technology—or whether Congress needs to write new rules for the tracking-pixel economy that already knows too much about your viewing habits.
