• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Siding against Paramount Skydance, a federal judge has rejected the company's request to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that it wrongly shared children's vide

In a decision issued Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Kenly Kiya Kato in the Central District of California ruled that the allegations in the case, if proven true, could support claims that Paramount and its Pluto TV subsidiary violated various privacy laws -- including the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

That statute, which dates to the Reagan era, prohibits video companies from sharing users' personally identifiable viewing history with other parties.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in November 2025, when five parents of young children alleged in a class-action complaint that Pluto TV's website carries Google and Microsoft tracking pixels that transmit personally identifiable video-viewing information about children who watch the site's "kids" section.

The lawsuit is one of numerous recent privacy cases against companies over their alleged use of tracking pixels.

The parents who sued Paramount claim websites that use tracking pixels "participate in Google and Microsoft's mass surveillance network and, in turn, benefit from Google and Microsoft's collection of user data at the expense of their customers’ privacy."

Google and Microsoft are not named as defendants in the case.

The judge dismissed the original complaint in April, ruling that the allegations -- even if proven true -- wouldn't establish that the children were injured by the claimed privacy violations.

At the time, she said the plaintiffs could amend their allegations and bring the complaint again.

In May, the plaintiffs alleged in a revised complaint that their children were served with "targeted advertising."

One parent, Raquel Diaz, alleged in the amended complaint that Pluto TV served her child with ads for "toys and movies," and that her child then requested those toys and movies.

Another parent, Lisa Medina, alleged that Pluto TV streamed ads to her child "that recommended more content to watch."

Medina "believes these ads contributed to" her child's "increased screen-time," adding that there has been a "negative change" in the child's behavior, according to the complaint.

For example, the complaint alleges, Medina's child "would talk back" to her and "would often rather watch TV than do her homework."

Paramount again urged the judge to quickly dismiss the complaint.

Among other arguments, the company said the new allegations didn't show a connection between the claimed privacy violations and potential harms to the children.

The plaintiffs "fail to plausibly allege a causal chain from defendants’ supposed wrongdoing (i.e., the alleged data disclosures to Microsoft and Google) to the allegedly problematic ads, and then from the ads to the alleged behavioral changes or purchases of advertised items," Paramount argued in a written filing in June.

The company also argued that the data allegedly transmitted to Google and Microsoft was not "personally identifiable."

Kato largely rejected Paramount's arguments for now.

Among other reasons, she said questions about whether the data at issue was personally identifiable would depend on facts that hadn't yet been established.

Kato also suggested it would be premature to rule now on whether the alleged disclosures to Google and Microsoft were tied to the alleged harms.

The ruling allows the plaintiffs to proceed with the bulk of their case, including claims that Paramount violated the federal video privacy law, federal and state wiretap laws and California privacy standards.

Paramount has not yet responded to a request for comment.