• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Privacy watchdogs are weighing in against Paramount in a battle over a Reagan-era law that prohibits video rental companies from sharing consumers' video-viewing history without their consent.

That law, the Video Privacy Protection Act, "is even more important today" than in 1988, when Congress passed the statute, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and more than a dozen academics argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late last week with the Supreme Court.

"Video streaming services have become ubiquitous, vastly expanding the amount and types of personal data that can be collected about video viewers," the advocates write. "Tracking and profiling that was merely theoretical in the 1980s is now possible with data analysis tools that anyone with a computer can access. This digital transformation has made strong privacy protections more necessary than ever."

The brief comes in a legal dispute dating to 2022, when California resident Michael Salazar claimed in a class-action complaint that Paramount's 247Sports.com violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by allegedly sending his identifiable video-viewing information to Meta via its analytics tool, the Meta Pixel.

Salazar is one of numerous individuals across the country who have recently sued online companies for allegedly violating the federal video privacy law by transmitting analytics data to other businesses.

Salazar himself has been the lead plaintiff in two such lawsuits -- one against Paramount, and a separate one against the National Basketball Association. The one against the sports organization was dismissed last year; Salazar is appealing that ruling to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Salazar alleged in the complaint against Paramount that he subscribed to 247Sports.com's newsletter, and also viewed videos on 247Sports.com while logged in to his Facebook account.

A district court judge dismissed the case, ruling that Salazar wasn't a "consumer" for purposes of the Video Privacy Protection Act. That statute defines consumer as a “renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.”

Salazar appealed to the 6th Circuit, arguing he met the definition of "consumer" because he subscribed to Paramount by registering for the newsletter.

A divided 6th Circuit rejected that argument, with two judges ruling that people are only “consumers” under the video privacy law if they subscribe to goods or services that are “in the nature of” audio-visual material.

A dissenting judge said the video privacy law applies whenever people rent, purchase or subscribe to “goods or services” from any company that offers videos -- including businesses such as supermarkets.

Salazar is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts and reinstate his claims.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center and other privacy experts are backing that request, arguing that the 1988 video privacy law authorizes lawsuits by "any individual who has a commercial relationship with a video tape service provider."

"Congress wanted to protect Americans’ freedom to watch the videos they choose without fear that this information will be made public or shared with others," the advocates write. "The statute’s broad definition of the term 'consumer' reflects this."

They also argue that the Video Privacy Protection Act doesn't prevent streaming providers from serving ads.

"Paramount could easily have used contextual advertising to provide relevant advertisements to its subscribers without using the Meta Pixel. 247Sports is a specialty sports content website," the Electronic Privacy Information Center and others write. "Visitors to the website are presumably interested in sports, and so advertisements for sports equipment, memorabilia, or team merchandise are likely to be relevant. In this way, the contextual advertising model -- which carries into the digital space the dominant advertising paradigm across most of human history -- allows for effective audience penetration without violating consumers’ privacy rights."

Paramount is expected to respond to the arguments by June 23.