Supreme Court Takes Up Key VPPA “Consumer” Question

The Supreme Court has agreed to address a critical threshold question under the Video Protection Privacy Act (“VPPA”), a decades-old law governing how video-viewing information may be shared: who qualifies as a “consumer” entitled to the statute’s protections? On January 26, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459 and will review a divided Sixth Circuit decision holding that an individual who subscribes to an email newsletter is not a “consumer” under the VPPA because email newsletters are not “video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”[1]

As discussed in our previous client alert, in recent years, the class action plaintiffs’ bar has attempted to apply the VPPA to technology well beyond its original context, including pixel and cookie-tracking technology operating on websites. To establish “consumer” status under the VPPA, plaintiffs—including the plaintiff in Salazar—often point to their subscription to a defendant’s online email newsletter, even when that newsletter contains no audiovisual material. As the Salazar petition noted, there is an “acknowledged and entrenched circuit split” over whether such a subscription to email newsletters renders an individual a “consumer” under the VPPA.[2] The Second and Seventh Circuits have taken a broad reading, allowing almost any subscription to confer “consumer” status.[3] But the Sixth and D.C. Circuits have taken a narrower view, requiring a direct connection between the plaintiff’s subscription and the provider’s audiovisual content.[4] This patchwork of conflicting rulings, in turn, has threatened to encourage forum shopping and expose defendants to materially different liability based solely on where a lawsuit is filed.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari is a welcome sight, especially given that the Court twice denied petitions for certiorari to resolve similar disputes.[5] And it has significant implications for businesses nationwide: a decision from the High Court on the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” has the potential to bring long-needed clarity and uniformity to this rapidly developing area of litigation. With certiorari granted, the case will now proceed to merits briefing, with argument likely taking place during the Court’s October 2026 Term and a decision anticipated in the first several months of 2027.

[1] Salazar v. Paramount Glob., 133 F.4th 642, 650 (6th Cir. 2025).

[2] Cert Pet., Salazar v. Paramount Glob., No. 25-459 (July 31, 2025).

[3] Salazar v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 118 F.4th 533 (2d Cir. 2024); Gardner v. Me-TV Nat’l Ltd. P’ship, 132 F.4th 1022 (7th Cir. 2025).

[4] Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper Publ’g Co., LLC, No. 24-7022, 2025 WL 2319550 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2025); Salazar v. Paramount, 133 F.4th 642.

[5] Order Denying Cert., Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Salazar, No. 24‑994 (Dec. 8, 2025); Order Denying Cert., Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., No. 25‑228 (Dec. 8, 2025).