Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Paramount argues that the Video Privacy Protection Act protects a subscriber only when the subscription concerns audiovisual goods or services. Michael Salazar argues that his newsletter subscription is enough to qualify him as a consumer under the statute.
Read the full background
The Supreme Court heard Salazar v. Paramount Global on October 14. The parties dispute the meaning of consumer under the 1988 statute as applied to a free digital newsletter and alleged disclosure of video-viewing information. Eligibility to sue is distinct from proving prohibited disclosure, the other elements of liability or damages. The oral argument is not a ruling.
People in this case
Paul D. ClementDirectly involved
Timeline
1 timeline entry on this page. Dates: October 14, 2026
October 2026
Supreme Court hears argument over the VPPA consumer definition
Incident
Joshua Hammack argued for Salazar that the definition is not limited to audiovisual subscriptions. Paul Clement argued for Paramount that the surrounding text supplies that limit. The hearing did not decide the case.
[01]Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcript
Counsel dispute the meaning of consumer in the Video Privacy Protection Act. The argument concerns who may sue; it is not a finding that every element of Salazar's claim has been proved.
Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcriptPrinted pages 3-5, Hammack opening; pages 43-45, Clement opening
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
VPPA consumer status requires a subscription, rental or purchase concerning audiovisual goods or services.
Sources (1)
- Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcriptPrinted pages 3-5, Hammack opening; pages 43-45, Clement opening
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
12 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.
Joshua I. HammackCounsel for Michael Salazar at Supreme Court oral argumentDirectly involved Before this statement
Hammack distinguished the statute's definitions of provider, protected information and consumer.
"not in the definition of "consumer." That choice is dispositive."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
Hammack argues that Congress did not limit consumer status to subscriptions for audiovisual goods or services.
After the statement
His interpretation concerns who is protected by the statute; other liability requirements remain separate.
Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcriptPrinted pages 3-5, Hammack opening; pages 43-45, Clement openingWhy this label?
The reference is Paramount's narrow consumer definition. Hammack challenges that legal interpretation rather than defending Paramount's exclusion.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Paul D. ClementCounsel for Paramount Global at Supreme Court oral argumentDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Clement disputed the premise that goods or services is an unrestricted phrase in the definition.
"it takes its meaning from the immediate surrounding text."
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
Clement argues that the surrounding statutory language limits the relevant goods and services to audiovisual materials.
After the statement
He used examples of unrelated purchases to explain why not every customer of a video provider should count as a protected consumer.
Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcriptPrinted pages 3-5, Hammack opening; pages 43-45, Clement openingWhy this label?
The reference is Paramount's narrow consumer definition. Clement defends that interpretation using the statutory context.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
National Retail FederationRetail trade association submitting an amicus brief Before this statement
This brief addresses the meaning of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act in Salazar v. Paramount.
"This arbitrary and overbroad application of the VPPA is not in line with the statutory language"
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
NRF backs Paramount, arguing that unrelated retail subscriptions and incidental website videos should not create VPPA consumer status.
After the statement
The brief presents the author's argument about statutory coverage.
National Retail Federation amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 2-3Why this label?
NRF supports Paramount's requirement that the customer relationship concern video services. It defends that limit by criticizing claims based on unrelated retail subscriptions.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Washington Legal FoundationJoint institutional amicus brief with TechFreedom Before this statement
This brief addresses the meaning of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act in Salazar v. Paramount.
"Paramount’s got the better of the argument."
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
WLF and TechFreedom support Paramount, arguing that consumer status is limited to audiovisual transactions.
After the statement
They argue that a broader reading would exceed Congress's video-privacy focus.
Washington Legal Foundation amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 1-4Why this label?
WLF and TechFreedom support Paramount's argument that VPPA consumer status requires an audiovisual transaction.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Retail Litigation CenterRetail industry legal association submitting an amicus brief Before this statement
This brief addresses the meaning of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act in Salazar v. Paramount.
"cannot be read in a vacuum"
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
RLC argues that Salazar's definition would allow VPPA claims by retail customers who never rented, purchased or subscribed to video content.
After the statement
The brief presents the author's argument about statutory coverage.
Retail Litigation Center amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 3-5Why this label?
RLC defends Paramount's video-transaction limit and argues that a broader definition would expose retailers to claims from customers who never subscribed to video content.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Motion Picture AssociationJoint institutional amicus brief with NCTABefore this statement
MPA and NCTA filed a brief supporting Paramount.
"Congress enacted a targeted statute focused on video transactions"
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
MPA and NCTA defend a definition of consumer tied to video transactions rather than ordinary transactions with a business that also supplies videos.
After the statement
Their argument treats the video transaction as the statute's focus.
Motion Picture Association amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 2-5Why this label?
MPA and NCTA support Paramount's narrower reading, arguing that Congress targeted video transactions. This defends the disputed limit on consumer status.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
News/Media AllianceNews publishing trade association submitting an amicus brief Before this statement
This brief addresses the meaning of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act in Salazar v. Paramount.
"The narrower view is correct."
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
The Alliance supports Paramount's audiovisual-transaction reading and warns that a broader rule would harm advertising-supported journalism.
After the statement
The brief presents the author's argument about statutory coverage.
News/Media Alliance amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 1-3Why this label?
The Alliance calls Paramount's narrower view correct and supports limiting consumer status to audiovisual transactions. It defends the position under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Meta PlatformsTechnology company submitting an amicus briefBefore this statement
In its statutory-text argument, Meta addresses Salazar's newsletter subscription and incidental video viewing.
"He signed up for a free email newsletter, and incidentally may have viewed free video content on 247Sports’ website."
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
Meta argues that a free newsletter subscription and incidental viewing do not make Salazar a consumer of audiovisual services.
After the statement
Meta also disputes whether 247Sports is a video provider and whether the data disclosed identifies specific viewing activity.
Meta amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 2-4Why this label?
Meta endorses Paramount's audiovisual-transaction requirement and argues that Salazar's newsletter relationship does not meet it. This defends the consumer-status limit under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
America's NewspapersNewspaper industry association submitting an amicus brief Before this statement
This brief addresses the meaning of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act in Salazar v. Paramount.
"America’s Newspapers fully agrees with those arguments."
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
America's Newspapers endorses Paramount's statutory argument and says broader coverage would threaten analytics-supported access to news.
After the statement
The brief presents the author's argument about statutory coverage.
America's Newspapers amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, argument section I, page 6Why this label?
America's Newspapers expressly agrees with Paramount's statutory argument. That endorsement defends the disputed consumer-status limit.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
U.S. Chamber of CommerceBusiness federation submitting an amicus brief Before this statement
This brief addresses the meaning of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act in Salazar v. Paramount.
"Salazar’s reading is not textualism but literalism"
Defended or excusedCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
The Chamber supports Paramount, arguing that consumer status must concern the provider's video goods or services rather than unrelated transactions.
After the statement
The Chamber argues that the goods-or-services phrase must be read in the statute's video-focused context.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 2-4Why this label?
The Chamber defends Paramount's contextual reading and rejects Salazar's broader interpretation. The fixed reference is Paramount's consumer-status limit.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Electronic Privacy Information CenterEPIC, joined by eighteen technical experts and legal scholarsBefore this statement
EPIC and eighteen technical experts and scholars filed this brief supporting Salazar.
"The plain text of the Act does not demand more."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
EPIC argues that video providers must protect customers' viewing records whether or not they subscribe specifically to videos.
After the statement
The brief argues that consent requirements can operate alongside online advertising.
EPIC amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 5-7Why this label?
Against Paramount's video-subscription requirement, EPIC argues that the statute covers a broader customer relationship. It disputes that interpretation of consumer status.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Victoria L. SchwartzLaw professor submitting her own amicus brief Before this statement
Schwartz filed a brief supporting Salazar's interpretation of the VPPA.
"No further limitation appears in the statute."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
Full statement and sources
Schwartz argues that the statute covers subscribers to any goods or services from a qualifying video provider and that courts should not add a video-only limitation.
After the statement
The brief presents the author's argument about statutory coverage.
Victoria L. Schwartz amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 1-3Why this label?
Schwartz rejects Paramount's audiovisual-transaction limit, arguing that the statute requires goods or services from a video provider but imposes no further limitation.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(11)
Original text
Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcript
Relevant passage: Printed pages 3-5, Hammack opening; pages 43-45, Clement opening
About this source
Counsel dispute the meaning of consumer in the Video Privacy Protection Act. The argument concerns who may sue; it is not a finding that every element of Salazar's claim has been proved.
- Author
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
U.S. Chamber of Commerce amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 2-4
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
America's Newspapers amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, argument section I, page 6
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Meta amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 2-4
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
News/Media Alliance amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 1-3
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Motion Picture Association amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 2-5
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Retail Litigation Center amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 3-5
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
National Retail Federation amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 2-3
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Washington Legal Foundation amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 1-4
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Victoria L. Schwartz amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 1-3
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
EPIC amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount
Relevant passage: Brief, summary of argument, pages 5-7
About this source
An amicus submission addresses the disputed consumer definition under the Video Privacy Protection Act. It is an argument to the Supreme Court, not a ruling on liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/salazar-paramount-newsletter-subscriber-video-privacy-protection-act
The Dispute Index. "Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees". First published: 2026-10-17. Last updated: 2026-10-17. https://disputeindex.com/cases/salazar-paramount-newsletter-subscriber-video-privacy-protection-act