Check video tracking consent before Supreme Court rules on privacy law
The Supreme Court is reviewing whether a 1988 law bans sharing video viewing history with advertisers without explicit user permission.
Key points
- The case involves Michael Salazar suing Paramount Global over data sharing with Facebook.
- Justices appeared skeptical of Paramount's argument that the law does not cover digital newsletters.
- A ruling favoring Salazar could trigger widespread class-action lawsuits against websites using trackers.
The US Supreme Court is deciding whether a decades-old privacy law prohibits companies from sharing your video viewing history with advertisers without your explicit consent. This decision could fundamentally change how websites track user behavior and serve targeted advertisements. The outcome will determine if existing data collection practices are legal or if they violate federal privacy protections established nearly forty years ago.
In plain English
At the center of this dispute is the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal law passed in 1988. Originally designed for physical videotape rentals, the statute makes it illegal for rental stores to disclose a customer’s viewing history. Michael Salazar argues this protection should extend to digital video content on websites. He contends that sharing his viewing data with Facebook violates the same privacy rights the law was meant to protect.
The background
Salazar filed a class-action lawsuit in 2022 after signing up for a free newsletter from 247Sports, a Paramount Global property. He claims a tracking tool on the site sent his video-watching details to Facebook without his permission. Paramount argued that the 1988 law does not apply to digital newsletter subscribers. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Paramount, rejecting the lawsuit, which led to the current Supreme Court review.
What changes now
During oral arguments, justices seemed unconvinced by Paramount’s narrow interpretation of the law. Justice Elena Kagan noted that websites have two simple options: obtain consent or stop selling private data. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether repurposing an old video law for web tracking was appropriate, but acknowledged it would lead to broad consent requirements. A ruling is expected by next summer.
Key terms explained
Understanding this case requires grasping how data tracking operates behind the scenes. When you visit a website, small scripts often run silently to record your actions. These tools can identify which videos you watch and send that information to third-party advertising networks. Privacy laws generally require companies to be transparent about this data sharing. If a law is interpreted to cover digital video, companies must likely ask for explicit permission before passing your viewing habits to advertisers.
What to do and how to stay safe: Paramount Global
- Review the privacy policies of websites where you regularly watch videos to understand how your viewing data is shared with third parties.
- Check your browser settings for options to block third-party cookies or tracking scripts that monitor your activity across different sites.
- Monitor official announcements from the Supreme Court regarding the Salazar v. Paramount Global case to see if new consent requirements are established.
- Consider using privacy-focused browser extensions that can detect and block known tracking pixels on video-hosting pages.
Step-by-step guide: vpns for china: how to bypass censorship safely
General security guidance from the Vector Update newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.
Frequently asked questions
Who is suing Paramount Global in this case?
Michael Salazar filed a class-action lawsuit claiming Paramount shared his video viewing history with Facebook without consent.
What law is the Supreme Court reviewing?
The court is reviewing the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law originally created for physical videotape rentals.
What could happen if Salazar wins?
A win for Salazar could open the door to more lawsuits against sites that use tracking tools on video pages, potentially reshaping digital advertising.
