Paul D. Clement
Role at the time: Counsel for Paramount Global at Supreme Court oral argument
Defended or excused
Statement summary
Clement argues that the surrounding statutory language limits the relevant goods and services to audiovisual materials.
“it takes its meaning from the immediate surrounding text.”
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. Clement defends that interpretation using the statutory context.