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.
2 matching responses. 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.
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