The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Oct. 14, 2026, in Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global dba 247Sports, No. 25-459.
The case asks who can sue as a "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a law that limits how providers share viewing records. According to the U.S. Supreme Court docket, the case reached the Court from the Sixth Circuit after dismissal in April 2025. Argument is not a ruling, so no claim form exists yet.
Table of Contents
- What makes someone a consumer here?
- What did Salazar claim about 247Sports?
- How did the justices react?
- Can you file a claim now?
What makes someone a consumer here?
Salazar seeks a broad rule. Any renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video provider would qualify. Paramount seeks a narrow rule.
Only subscribers to audiovisual goods or services would qualify. According to analysis from Finnegan, that choice is the question before the Court. The choice matters for free-video cases. A broad rule lets viewers who paid for something else still sue over video disclosures.
What did Salazar claim about 247Sports?
Salazar says he subscribed to the 247Sports.com email newsletter. He watched site videos while logged into Facebook. The Pixel allegedly sent his Facebook ID and viewing history to Meta without consent, according to a Justia summary of the Sixth Circuit decision.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal. It held a free newsletter subscription does not create consumer status. It required subscribing to goods or services in the nature of tapes or similar audiovisual materials.
How did the justices react?
The Court heard Joshua Hammack for Salazar and Paul Clement for Paramount. Argument ran nearly 90 minutes on Oct. 14, 2026.
The justices appeared likely to side with Salazar and let the action proceed, doubting the narrow reading, according to a Bloomberg Law argument report. That read is tentative. Questions at argument test both sides and votes can change before an opinion issues.
Can you file a claim now?
No settlement or claim form exists now. A pro-Salazar ruling would decide only who may sue, not automatic liability. A plaintiff still must prove knowing disclosure of personal viewing information without consent.
Prevailing plaintiffs may receive at least $2,500 in liquidated damages plus punitive damages and fees, under the text of 18 U.S.C. Section 2710 at GovInfo. Do not pay anyone who promises early payout. Keep records that could show what you used and watched:.
- keep newsletter signup confirmations and account emails
- note dates you watched videos while logged into Facebook
- watch the Supreme Court docket for a decision, not a claims site