• by Wendy Davis , June 23, 2026

Paramount on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to reject a California man's bid to reinstate a lawsuit claiming that the 247Sports company violated a Reagan-era privacy law by allegedly transmitting data about his video viewing to Meta.

The company's central argument to the Supreme Court is that the plaintiff, California resident Michael Salazar, is not a "consumer" for purposes of the 38-year-old Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prohibits video rental companies from sharing consumers' video-viewing history without their consent.

That law defines consumer as a “renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.”

Congress passed the statute after a Washington, D.C. newspaper obtained Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's rental records from the now defunct video store Potomac Video, and published them.

Salazar alleged in a 2022 class-action complaint that he subscribed to Paramount's 247Sports.com newsletter, and also viewed videos on 247Sports.com while logged in to his Facebook account. He alleged that 247Sports.com unlawfully transmitted his identifiable video-viewing information to Meta via its analytics tool, the Meta Pixel.

Salazar is just one of numerous individuals who have recently sued online companies -- including newspapers and streaming video providers -- for allegedly violating the federal video privacy law by transmitting analytics data to other businesses.

A trial judge dismissed Salazar's lawsuit, and a divided 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his bid to revive the case, ruling that he was not a "consumer" because 247Sports is not a "video tape service provider."

The two 6th Circuit judges in the majority ruled 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 then sought review at the Supreme Court, which agreed earlier this year to hear the case.

Paramount is now asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court rulings. The company argues in its new filing that 247Sports is not a "video tape service provider," and therefore the video privacy law doesn't apply to Salazar's claims.

"247Sports, owned by Paramount, does not rent, sell, or offer subscriptions to videotapes, movies, or shows. It runs a sports news website focused on college sports," Paramount writes.

The company also calls attention to the recent crop of similar privacy lawsuits, arguing that class-action lawyers have "tried to repurpose the statute to target unsuspecting companies for routine business practices."

"This new wave of suits has nothing to do with video stores, video rentals, or the distinct privacy concerns with video-transaction records," Paramount writes. "These lawsuits instead insist that people become VPPA 'consumers' whenever they buy any item, at any time, from any business that later posts videos online."

The dispute has drawn attention from outside groups, including the privacy watchdog Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is siding with Salazar.

The privacy advocates argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that the 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 organizations wrote. "The statute’s broad definition of the term 'consumer' reflects this."

They added 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," the Electronic Privacy Information Center and others argued. "Visitors to the website are presumably interested in sports, and so advertisements for sports equipment, memorabilia, or team merchandise are likely to be relevant."

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated when it will hear oral arguments.