Joshua I. Hammack
Role at the time: Counsel for Michael Salazar at Supreme Court oral argument
Challenged the characterization
Statement summary
Hammack argues that Congress did not limit consumer status to subscriptions for audiovisual goods or services.
“not in the definition of "consumer." That choice is dispositive.”
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Salazar v. Paramount Global, official October 14 oral argument transcriptPrinted pages 3-5, Hammack opening; pages 43-45, Clement opening
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used this label
The reference is Paramount's narrow consumer definition. Hammack challenges that legal interpretation rather than defending Paramount's exclusion.