• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, April 9, 2025

Siding against Hearst Television, the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing to a federal judge that the Video Privacy Protection Act does not violate the First Amendment.

That law, passed in 1988, “serves the government’s substantial interest in protecting consumer privacy and intellectual freedom, directly advances that interest, and is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest,” the Department of Justice argues in papers filed last week with U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns in Boston.

The government's papers come in a dispute dating to March 2023, when Hearst TV app user Michelle Saunders claimed in a class-action complaint that the company violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by allegedly sharing app users' video-viewing history -- along with device identifiers and geolocation data -- with Google Ad Manager and Braze, an engagement platform. Saunders later dropped out of the litigation and was replaced by Charles Therrien, who alleged that he used one of Hearst's apps to receive free local news and weather.

The Video Privacy Protection Act prohibits video providers from sharing consumers' identifiable video-viewing information without their consent.

The suit is one of numerous recent cases brought by web users who allege that online companies are violating the video privacy law by embedding analytics tools on their websites.

Hearst recently urged Stearns to rule in its favor without holding a trial. The company raised several arguments, including that Video Privacy Protection Act unconstitutionally restricts truthful speech.

The company added that the video privacy act was not “intended to elevate the viewing of local news and weather reports to a protected privacy interest.”

Hearst additionally argued that Therrien can't show the company knowingly disclosed his identifiable video-viewing history, and that the privacy law wasn't meant to cover business-to-business disclosures such as the alleged disclosures to Google and Blaze.

The Justice Department stepped in to defend the law against Hearst's constitutional challenge, arguing that the statute advances the “substantial” governmental interest in protecting privacy, adding that even business-to-business disclosures can harm people's privacy.

The administration specifically said in its legal papers that disclosing information regarding news or weather videos people watch can threaten their privacy.

“Disclosure of what weather videos a person watched could reveal a person’s location, or perhaps upcoming travel plans. And disclosure of what news videos a person watched could reveal information about a person’s political affiliation or interests,” the Justice Department writes.

The Justice Department didn't take a position on other issues raised by Hearst, except to urge Stearns to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the law if he could decide the case based on one of the company's other arguments.

Stearns is expected to hold a hearing in the case on April 16.