Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459: Argued October 14. Does a 1988 Video Privacy Law Protect a Newsletter Subscriber Whose Viewing History Went to Facebook?

Who the parties are

• Petitioner: Michael Salazar (docket No. 25-459).
• Respondent: Paramount Global, doing business as 247 Sports (docket No. 25-459).
• Amici curiae include the National Retail Federation, Meta Platforms, News/Media Alliance, America's Newspapers, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Chamber of Progress, the Entertainment Software Association, the Retail Litigation Center, Liberty Justice Center and Professor Victoria L. Schwartz (docket No. 25-459).

What happened in the lower courts

• The case comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 23-5748, decision reported at 133 F.4th 642. The record came from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Questions Presented, No. 25-459; docket).
• According to the petition, Salazar subscribed to Paramount's online newsletter, which he used to view videos, and Paramount "disclosed Mr. Salazar's Facebook ID and his video-watching history to Facebook" (Questions Presented, No. 25-459). Those are the petition's words.

The question the Court is deciding

"The question here is whether the phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider,' as used in the VPPA's definition of 'consumer,' refers to all of a video tape service provider's goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services." (Questions Presented, No. 25-459.)

High-speed internet. Anywhere.Streaming, video calls and gaming — even out past the county line.CHECK AVAILABILITYSponsored

Case timeline

• Oct. 10, 2025: Petition filed.
• Jan. 26, 2026: Certiorari granted.
• 2026: Merits and amicus briefs filed (docket No. 25-459).
• Oct. 14, 2026: Oral argument.

What's at stake (in the official documents' own words)

• The statute bars a "video tape service provider" from "knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider" (Questions Presented, quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1)).
• The Court's answer decides whether a subscriber to a non-video product, such as a newsletter, counts as a protected "consumer" (Questions Presented).

What happens next, and when

The Court will issue a written opinion later in the term (Argument Calendar).

What these terms mean

• Certiorari (writ of certiorari) (say it: ser-shee-uh-RAIR-ee). Means: An order from the Supreme Court telling a lower court to send up the records of a case the Justices have agreed to hear. Origin and history: The Certiorari Act of 1925 gave the Supreme Court the choice of whether to hear most appeals. Today it agrees to hear about 100 to 150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year. Source: Meaning: uscourts.gov Glossary of Legal Terms, "Writ of certiorari." History: uscourts.gov, "About the Supreme Court" (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts).
• Cert granted (say it: SURT GRAN-tid). Means: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. It is not a ruling on who wins. Origin and history: "Cert" is short for certiorari. When a party asks the Court to review its case, it files a petition for a writ of certiorari. Source: uscourts.gov, "About the Supreme Court"; Supreme Court Order List, Oct. 13, 2026 ("The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted").
• Amicus curiae (say it: uh-MEE-kus KYOOR-ee-eye). Means: A brief filed by a person or group that is not a party to the case but has an interest in it, offering its own arguments. Origin and history: Latin for "friend of the court." Source: uscourts.gov Glossary, "Amicus curiae"; uscourts.gov, "Supreme Court Procedures."
• Docket (say it: DOK-it). Means: The court's running log of a case, with a short dated entry for every filing and order. Origin and history: Each Supreme Court case gets a docket number, such as No. 25-1103. Source: uscourts.gov Glossary of Legal Terms, "Docket."

Each term card has a short audio clip of the term spoken by Ryan Standley. The clip players appear when the term-card display goes live.

Read next

• U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for D.C.
• Blanche v. Ozurumba
• Berry v. United States
• FCC v. Brown
• Beaird v. United States
• Howard v. Texas / In re Howard
• Roofing Designs v. Royal American
• Silva Ochoa v. United States
• Monsanto v. Dennis
• Hobson v. United States
• Order list, Oct. 13, 2026
• Chief Justice stays the Fourth Circuit in FCC v. Brown
• Arguments this week and the November calendar
• Howard stay denials, Oct. 7

Sources

• Supreme Court docket No. 25-459, read Oct. 13, 2026.
• Questions Presented, No. 25-459.
• Argument Calendar, Session Beginning Oct. 5, 2026.

Notes and sources

1. Image: The west front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. (file photo). Photo: Carol M. Highsmith, Library of Congress (public domain).
2. Author: Ryan Standley / Record of Sale, LLC / Notice Nearby.
3. Discussed on @NoticeNearYou: (pending — fill xPostUrl after live post).
4. Not legal advice. Not a newspaper. Not Legal Publication. Record of Sale, LLC (Oregon).