Supreme Court To Decide How 1988 Videotape Privacy Law Applies To Online Video (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0180667372
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/01/27/2217211/supreme-court-to-decide-how-1988-videotape-privacy-law-applies-to-online-video
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/supreme-court-to-decide-how-1988-videotape-privacy-law-applies-to-online-video/
> The Supreme Court is taking up a case on whether Paramount violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing a user's viewing history to Facebook. The case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, hinges on the law's definition of the word "consumer." Salazar filed a class action against Paramount in 2022, alleging that it " [1]violated the VPPA by disclosing his personally identifiable information to Facebook without consent ," Salazar's petition to the Supreme Court said. Salazar had signed up for an online newsletter through 247Sports.com, a site owned by Paramount, and had to provide his email address in the process. Salazar then used 247Sports.com to view videos while logged in to his Facebook account.
>
> "As a result, Paramount disclosed his personally identifiable information -- including his Facebook ID and which videos he watched—to Facebook," the [2]petition (PDF) said. "The disclosures occurred automatically because of the Facebook Pixel Paramount installed on its website. Facebook and Paramount then used this information to create and display targeted advertising, which increased their revenues." The [3]1988 law (PDF) defines consumer as "any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider." The phrase "video tape service provider" is defined to include providers of "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials," and thus arguably applies to more than just sellers of tapes.
>
> The legal question for the Supreme Court "is whether the phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider,' as used in the VPPA's definition of 'consumer,' refers to all of a video tape service provider's goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services," Salazar's petition said. The Supreme Court [4]granted his petition (PDF) to hear the case in a list of orders released yesterday. [...] SCOTUSblog [5]says that "the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the court's 2026-27 term," which begins in October 2026.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/supreme-court-to-decide-how-1988-videotape-privacy-law-applies-to-online-video/
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-459/379417/20251010164519322_25-%20_______Petition%20for%20Writ.pdf
[3] https://www.congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg3195.pdf
[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012626zor_ec8f.pdf
[5] https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-digital-privacy-reverses-ruling-ordering-new-murder-trial/
Re: (Score:2)
> yay for consulting old irrelevant laws from a dead paradigm that were poorly thought out, poorly worded and poorly implemented in the first place
That description could easily apply to things like the Second Amendment. Just sayin' ...
Re: (Score:2)
That description could easily apply to things like the Second Amendment. Just sayin' ...
The Second Amendment is more relevant today than when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Re: (Score:2)
> The Second Amendment is more relevant today than when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
I agree 100%, and I do not and never will own firearms. But the idea behind the Second Amendment was that if our government ever became evil, sending jackbooted thugs to punish and kill people who the govt didn't like, then the Second Amendment would save us.
Sadly, with masked govt agents breaking into houses without judicial warrants, handcuffing kindergartners in class, and killing peaceful protestors, the 2A folks have shown that they are all Team Government Jackbooted Thug. Just about everyone who sai
Re: (Score:2)
That really was not the intent behind the second amendment. The whole 'to protect against government tyranny' framing came out of trying to fight the civil rights movement. The 'tyranny' pictured at the time was things like desegregated schools, disallowing sunset towns, and prosecuting lynchings.
The original purpose was to appease southern delegates who were afraid their slave patrols would be disarmed by a government that might try to protect people
Re: (Score:3)
Weird how that "right" has made the USA far less safe than other 1st world countries that have gun controls.
Even more weird has been how the 2A has not been used to remove the corrupt government you currently have.
The Bill of Rights, stands. (Score:2)
>> yay for consulting old irrelevant laws from a dead paradigm that were poorly thought out, poorly worded and poorly implemented in the first place
> That description could easily apply to things like the Second Amendment. Just sayin' ...
The Second Amendment that still stands today, was ratified in 1791. Two-hundred and thirty-five fucking years ago. Pretty damn sure when you can measure your effective policy in centuries it has earned the respect of being buried in the timeless foundation of common fucking sense, rising well above generations of attacks via misinterpretations-for-profit.
Regardless of modern anti-gun legislation attacks and corrupt taxation requiring licensing of a natural Right, 400 million guns still lay in the hands of
Remember folks (Score:2)
Be kind and rewind!
Imagine... (Score:2)
Imagine what it would be like to have an efficient and hard-working executive branch, so that rather than making judges scratch their heads to figure out how to fit an old square peg into a new round hole, we could pass a new law that fits the modern context.
Re: (Score:2)
This law does fit the modern context. It exactly describes what is going and says NO, WRONG.
The problem is that over time, wealthy scum decided to do what is wrong. They contributed to politicians and next thing you know, they passed several laws to let scumbags do the wrong thing.
But they failed to remove the old, honest laws. Now they are caught. Now they should pay.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to imagine a legislative branch that did that.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'd prefer to imagine a legislative branch that did that.
Bwahahaha!! Wow, what a mistake. Yeah, absolutely legislative. I wonder what I was thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
> Imagine what it would be like to have an efficient and hard-working executive branch, so that rather than making judges scratch their heads to figure out how to fit an old square peg into a new round hole, we could pass a new law that fits the modern context.
Er, I meant legislative branch. Wow. I can't believe I typed executive there. Embrace the autocracy?
Re: (Score:1)
> "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials,"
So, you're saying the videos the plaintiff was watching weren't pre-recorded audio-visual materials? Then what the hell are video files?
Re:found Newt G. renting porn (Score:1)
He rented "Monica does Bubba" and "Monica & Don do Bubba".
On a more serious note, we have a despot-wannabe trying to undo our democracy, DOS-ing the legal system in the process, and SCOTUS wants to argue over video viewer logs? Priorities, people, priorities!
Re:Didn't this law come about (Score:5, Informative)
It was Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee.