The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could significantly reshape how the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to digital businesses.

Although enacted nearly four decades ago, the VPPA has reemerged as a powerful tool in privacy litigation — particularly against companies that host video content and use common tracking technologies. The Court’s decision could determine how far this 1988 law extends in today’s ecommerce ecosystem. For ecommerce business owners, the outcome could determine whether routine website features like product videos, pixels, and analytics tools carry new litigation risk.

The Legal Question Before the Court

At the center of Salazar v. Paramount Global is a consequential question: Who qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA?

The statute defines a consumer as a “renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Courts are divided on how broadly that definition applies online.

Some courts have held that signing up for a newsletter or creating an account may be enough to qualify as a “subscriber,” even without paying for or specifically subscribing to video content. Others require a direct subscription relationship tied to audiovisual services.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve this split and clarify who has standing to sue — a decision that will directly affect the scope of VPPA liability.

Why the VPPA Exists

Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 after a newspaper published the video rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, prompting bipartisan concern about the privacy of individuals’ viewing habits.

The law originally targeted video rental stores and unauthorized disclosure of VHS rental records. Decades later, plaintiffs are invoking the same statute to challenge digital tracking tools embedded on websites.

Why This Matters for Ecommerce

The VPPA has been used to bring a growing number of class action lawsuits against online businesses, including ecommerce brands, often based on the use of standard tools such as tracking pixels, embedded videos, or third-party analytics. These cases frequently focus on technical data-sharing allegations rather than actual consumer harm.

If the Supreme Court adopts a broad interpretation of who qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA, ecommerce businesses could face:

• Expanded litigation risk, even when customers did not subscribe to or meaningfully engage with video content
• Liability tied to routine marketing tools, including product videos, analytics, and advertising technologies
• Increased compliance costs and pressure to limit or redesign video-based features
• Uncertainty for non-media brands, simply for offering video alongside products or newsletters

Because the VPPA allows for statutory damages, even minor or inadvertent issues can result in high-stakes lawsuits—posing particular challenges for small and mid-sized ecommerce businesses.

The Growing Cost of VPPA Litigation

In recent years, plaintiffs have filed hundreds of VPPA class actions. Annual filing rates have been estimated at roughly 200 cases per year, with many additional threats of litigation and mass arbitration.

Several notable cases illustrate how these claims have translated into real financial exposure for digital and ecommerce businesses:

• NBA / Salazar VPPA cases: Plaintiffs claimed that subscribing to an email newsletter was enough to qualify as a VPPA “consumer,” even without subscribing to video content—an interpretation now before the Supreme Court. Read more.
• BuzzFeed ($9M settlement): Allegations that tracking pixels shared users’ video-viewing data led to a multi-million-dollar settlement, highlighting the scale of potential exposure. Read more.
• MindValley ($450K settlement): Claims tied to the use of Meta Pixel on pages with video content showed how non-media businesses can face VPPA liability. Read more.
• GameStop ($4.5M settlement): A retail brand settled claims alleging that video-related data was shared through Facebook tracking tools, despite video not being its core offering. Read more.
• DirectToU / Alliance Entertainment ($1.57M settlement): This case reinforced how statutory damages can accumulate quickly when video data is alleged to be shared through routine digital practices. Read more.

Together, these cases show how a decades-old video privacy statute has become a meaningful litigation and financial risk for ecommerce businesses that use video and standard marketing technologies.

EIA’s Perspective

EIA supports strong consumer privacy protections, but believes privacy laws should be applied in ways that reflect modern technology and real consumer expectations. Expanding a decades-old video rental statute to cover routine ecommerce activity risks creating legal uncertainty and encouraging abusive litigation, rather than meaningfully improving consumer privacy.

What’s Next

The Court’s decision in Salazar v. Paramount Global will help define how a decades-old privacy law applies to modern digital commerce — and the outcome could have lasting implications for online brands.

As the Supreme Court considers this case, EIA is watching closely to ensure that privacy protections do not come at the expense of innovation, growth, and fair competition in ecommerce. EIA will continue to monitor developments and keep members informed about potential impacts on ecommerce operations and marketing practices.

Join the EIA today to help strengthen and shape policies that affect all ecommerce businesses. Together, we can continue to create the future of ecommerce. Subscribe to EIA email updates to stay informed on key developments and their impact on your business.