Victoria L. Schwartz
Role at the time: Law professor submitting her own amicus brief
Challenged the characterization
Statement summary
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.”
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Victoria L. Schwartz amicus brief in Salazar v. ParamountBrief, summary of argument, pages 1-3
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.
Why we used 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.