• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

The Chamber of Commerce, Meta Platforms and a variety of industry associations are siding with Paramount in a dispute over how to interpret a Reagan-era privacy law that prohibits video rental companies from sharing information about consumers' video viewing history without their consent.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Commerce argues that a broad interpretation of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act would result in "a sweeping and harmful transformation of the internet."

The group adds that an expansive reading of the statute would eliminate "the targeted advertising model that underwrites much of the modern internet."

The business organization's brief comes in a dispute dating to 2022, when a California resident named Michael Salazar alleged in a class-action complaint that Paramount violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. He alleged that he subscribed to Paramount's 247Sports.com newsletter, and also viewed videos on 247Sports.com while logged in to his Facebook account.

He claimed in the complaint 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.

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.

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

The Video Privacy Protection Act defines consumer as a “renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from 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” audiovisual 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 recently asked the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court rulings, reiterating the argument that the video privacy law does not cover Salazar's claims because 247Sports is not a "video tape service provider."

The Chamber of Commerce contends in its friend-of-the-court brief that Congress didn't intend for the 1988 privacy law to apply to websites that transmit data for analytics purposes.

"When Congress passed the Act, the targeted-advertising ecosystem that funds the modern internet would have been science fiction," the business group wrote. "Cookies were a snack. The notion that a 1988 videoprivacy law silently encoded a national policy on internet behavioral advertising is precisely the kind of anachronism this Court warns against."

Meta also urged the Supreme Court to reject Salazar's argument, writing that analytics tools "play a vital role in today’s online ecosystem."

"This Court should stem the tide of lawsuits seeking to punish the distribution and use of pixel technology and similar analytics tools," the company writes in a separate friend-of-the-court brief.

Other groups including the Motion Picture Association, National Retail Federation, and think tank Chamber of Progress also filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Paramount.

But privacy watchdogs including the Electronic Privacy Information Center are backing Salazar's argument.

"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 argued in a friend-of-the-court brief filed earlier this year.

Those groups also dispute that a ruling against Paramount would harm online advertising, arguing that streaming providers could serve contextual ads without relying on analytics tools such as the Meta Pixel.

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral arguments.