Salazar v. Paramount Global is a Video Privacy Protection Act lawsuit over whether a sports website's newsletter subscriber counts as a "consumer" whose video-watching data is legally protected. The U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and will decide a question that affects any media company running both video content and an email signup. Michael Salazar filed suit in September 2022, claiming Meta Pixel tracking code on Paramount Global's 247Sports.com secretly sent his video-viewing history to Facebook without his consent, and he sought to represent other newsletter subscribers under the same claim, according to the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. The case has since moved from a federal trial court to the Sixth Circuit to the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in October 2026.
Official resources:
- Read the official notice from Supremecourt — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
- Read the original argument from Supremecourt — Use this page to read the original argument in context.
Table of Contents
- What Salazar Claims Happened on 247Sports.com
- Why the Lower Courts Threw Out the Case
- Why the Supreme Court Took the Case
- What Happens Next, and When
- Why This Case Matters Beyond 247Sports
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Salazar Claims Happened on 247Sports.com
The Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, is a 1988 federal law that bars a "video tape service provider" from disclosing a consumer's video-viewing history without consent.
Salazar alleged that Paramount Global, which owns and operates 247Sports.com, embedded Meta's tracking pixel on the site in a way that sent data about which videos he watched to Facebook, without telling him or getting his permission, as described in the Duane Morris blog post. Salazar's connection to the site was a free email newsletter he had signed up for. He argued that signing up for the newsletter made him a "consumer" under the statute, entitling him to sue over the video data Paramount allegedly shared, and he sought to represent a class of other newsletter subscribers in the same position.
Why the Lower Courts Threw Out the Case
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed Salazar's complaint, ruling that a free newsletter subscription did not make him a VPPA "consumer" because he never alleged he obtained any audio-visual materials through that subscription, according to the Sixth Circuit's opinion summarized on Justia. In other words, the court read "consumer" narrowly: it protects people who get video content from a provider, not everyone who signs up for anything the provider offers.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed that dismissal on April 3, 2025. The appeals court found that Salazar had Article III standing to sue, meaning he suffered a concrete enough injury to be in federal court, but still failed to plausibly allege he qualified as a VPPA "consumer," because the statute's "goods or services" language means only a provider's audio-visual offerings, per the same Justia-published opinion. The court denied rehearing on May 13, 2025, and the ruling is now reported at 133 F.4th 642.
Why the Supreme Court Took the Case
The Sixth Circuit's narrow reading put it at odds with two other federal appeals courts. The Second Circuit, ruling on Salazar's parallel suit against the NBA, and the Seventh Circuit, in Gardner v. Me-TV, both held that subscribing to any goods or services from a video provider is enough to make someone a "consumer" under the VPPA, creating a direct split among the circuits, according to the Duane Morris blog post.
That disagreement is why the Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 26, 2026, docketing the case as No. 25-459, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports, as shown on the Supreme Court's own docket page. The justices will resolve whether "consumer" reaches anyone who obtains any goods or services from a video-content provider, or only those who specifically obtain its audio-visual materials.
What Happens Next, and When
The Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for Wednesday, October 14, 2026, listing Salazar's case as No. 25-459 on its official October 2026 argument calendar. In April 2026, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed an amicus brief supporting Salazar, arguing for a broad reading of "consumer" that protects video-viewing privacy under the 1988 statute, according to an EPIC press release.
As of the most recent reporting checked on October 10, 2026, no decision had issued, with a ruling expected sometime during the Court's October Term 2026. Because the case has already been argued and decided twice at the circuit level before reaching the Supreme Court, there is no pending settlement or claims process for consumers to join right now. Anyone tracking the case for a potential class action should watch for the Court's ruling rather than looking for a current claim form.
Why This Case Matters Beyond 247Sports
The VPPA allows statutory damages that commentators describe as a $2,500-per-violation minimum, which is what turns this dispute into a major business risk rather than a narrow dispute over one website, according to a Jimerson Birr blog post from February 2026. If the Supreme Court adopts the broad reading favored by the Second and Seventh Circuits, any company that runs video content and separately collects subscriber data, such as through a newsletter signup, could face VPPA class claims over pixel-based tracking.
A ruling for the narrow reading the Sixth Circuit adopted would instead protect companies like Paramount from liability whenever the plaintiff's only connection to the site was something other than directly consuming its video content. Readers who subscribed to a video provider's newsletter, app, or other free service, and who are weighing whether their own data might be covered by a future settlement, will have a clearer answer once the Court rules on the meaning of "consumer" later in its current term.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a settlement or claim form available right now for Salazar v. Paramount Global?
No. The case is pending before the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument on October 14, 2026, and no ruling, settlement, or claims process exists yet.
What is the Video Privacy Protection Act?
It's a 1988 federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, that bars video providers from disclosing a consumer's video-viewing history without consent, and it allows statutory damages described by commentators as a $2,500 minimum per violation.
Why did two different appeals courts reach different outcomes on similar facts?
The Sixth Circuit read "consumer" to cover only people who obtain a provider's audio-visual materials, while the Second and Seventh Circuits read it to cover anyone who obtains any goods or services from that provider, creating the circuit split the Supreme Court is now resolving.