Schwartz says VPPA consumer status does not require a video subscription

Victoria L. SchwartzLaw professor submitting her own amicus brief

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.

“No further limitation appears in the statute.”

Original text

Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Victoria L. Schwartz amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 1-3
Paramount signs above the entrance to One Astor Plaza in Times Square.
Credit: Nielsoncaetanosalmeron

Where this statement fits

Paramount says a newsletter subscription does not confer video-privacy protections; Salazar disagrees

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 case

Case updates

Want the next important update?

Follow this case and get an email when an important development changes the record.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

Source and context

Original text

Victoria L. Schwartz amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount (opens in a new tab)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.

Before the quotation

Schwartz filed a brief supporting Salazar's interpretation of the VPPA.

After the quotation

The brief presents the author's argument about statutory coverage.

How this statement is classified

Challenged the characterization

The label describes this statement's response within the context above.

Why 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.

Recorded on
Published here
People and groups discussed
Paramount Skydance

More from this case

Read the full case

Share or embed this statement

Quote card: Victoria L. Schwartz, Schwartz says VPPA consumer status does not require a video subscriptionDownload image (PNG)

The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.

Cite this record

Publisher
The Dispute Index
Title
Schwartz says VPPA consumer status does not require a video subscription
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/5918-schwartz-argues-that-the-statute-covers-subscribers-to

Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.

The Dispute Index. "Schwartz says VPPA consumer status does not require a video subscription". First published: 2026-10-17. Last updated: 2026-10-17. https://disputeindex.com/events/5918-schwartz-argues-that-the-statute-covers-subscribers-to