The Supreme Court case will decide whether newsletter-only subscribers can keep pending lawsuits alive under the Video Privacy Protection Act, the federal video-privacy law. A narrow reading of consumer could expose those cases to dismissal, while a broad reading would let them proceed. The case is Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, No.
25-459. The U.S. Supreme Court docket shows certiorari granted Jan. 26, 2026 after the Sixth Circuit decision of April 3, 2025. Salazar subscribed only to a Paramount 247Sports newsletter and alleges Paramount shared his video-viewing history with Facebook without consent through tracking tools.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Court Deciding?
- Why Do Newsletter Claims Face Different Outcomes?
- Which Pending Lawsuits Are Most at Risk?
- What Will the Ruling Not Decide?
- What Can You Do While You Wait?
What Is the Court Deciding?
Cornell Legal Information Institute frames the central question as who counts as a consumer under the law, described on the Cornell case page. The choice is between any subscriber to a video provider's goods and only subscribers to its audiovisual goods or services.
A streaming subscriber with a paid video account falls on the audiovisual side under either view. A free newsletter subscriber who watches free clips tests the broader view.
Why Do Newsletter Claims Face Different Outcomes?
Hunton Andrews Kurth reports the Sixth Circuit dismissed Salazar's newsletter-based claim as non-consumer, detailed in the February analysis. That ruling splits from the Second Circuit's Salazar v. NBA decision, which allowed newsletter subscribers to sue.
The Court declined review in the NBA case in late 2025. Trial courts often follow the appeals court above them. So similar newsletter claims can survive in one region and fail in another until the Supreme Court resolves the split.
Which Pending Lawsuits Are Most at Risk?
Hunton Andrews Kurth explains a narrow reading would expose newsletter-only pending class actions to dismissal. A broad reading would let those cases proceed to disputes over viewing history, disclosure and consent.
WilmerHale notes defendants reach beyond streamers to sports, retail, real-estate and media sites that show video, summarized in the 2025 litigation review. Those sites face added risk when they use pixels or cookies to share viewing data. WilmerHale reports liability starts at $2,500 per violation, plus punitive damages and fees.
What Will the Ruling Not Decide?
Recording Law notes the case decides only consumer status, not provider, viewing-history or consent issues, explained in the argument preview. Winning consumer status does not prove a disclosure occurred. Losing it ends the VPPA claim before those later fights begin. Recording Law verified that as of Oct.
10, 2026, oral argument set for Oct. 14, 2026 had not occurred and no decision existed. Pending cases can therefore remain paused on this threshold issue. Later rulings on provider, viewing history and consent will still control recovery.
What Can You Do While You Wait?
Do not assume a pending case is dead or won. Use the pause to preserve your place and papers.
Do not discard a notice because the Supreme Court took the case. Keep your contact information current with the claims administrator.
- Save claim notices and emails showing newsletter or video access.
- Track filing deadlines listed on any settlement notice you receive.
- Watch the docket for the consumer decision before expecting payment.