The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 18, 1988, grew out of one of Washington’s more underwhelming privacy scandals. During Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a newspaper published his video rental history, which had been leaked by a video store clerk. This incident was intended to reveal his character but revealed nothing too controversial; the Bork Tapes showed that Judge Bork was partial to Alfred Hitchcock films, spy thrillers, and British costume dramas. Indeed, the enduring legacy of the Bork Tapes was not salacious, but legislative— the episode sparked bipartisan concern that something as personal as an individual’s viewing habits could be exposed without consent. In response, Congress moved swiftly to pass the VPPA, a law designed to shield Americans from unwarranted intrusions into their video rental and viewing records.
In an unusual turn of events, this analog, cassette-era statute—crafted to protect the privacy of brick-and-mortar video store customers—has taken on new life in the digital age, as the plaintiff’s bar has repurposed the VPPA to pursue claims against modern businesses over online data sharing and video-viewing analytics. On January 26, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will consider an appeal of the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision affirming the dismissal of a case brought under the VPPA. Indeed, the plaintiff’s bar’s continued ability to raise such claims will hinge in large part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination of who constitutes a “consumer” under that legislation.
The VPPA generally prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing the “personally identifiable information” of a “Consumer,” unless certain enumerated exceptions apply. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). The VPPA defines “video tape service provider” as “any person, engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio-visual materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4). “Personally identifiable information” means “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 2710(a)(3). And a “Consumer” means “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 2710(a)(1).
It is this last definition (the meaning of the word “Consumer” under the VPPA) that the Sixth Circuit wrestled with in Salazar v. Paramount Global. That case, brought as a class action, alleged that the plaintiff’s video viewing history on a college sports website was disclosed to third parties without his consent. Salazar v. Paramount Glob., 133 F.4th 642, 645 (6th Cir. 2025). He alleged that he qualified as a “Consumer” under the VPPA because he became a subscriber when he signed up for the website’s online newsletter. But he did not allege that the videos he watched were available only to subscribers or even that he accessed the videos through the newsletter. “If anything, the complaint suggested that the relevant videos were accessible to anyone, even those without a newsletter subscription.” Id. at 653. Because he did not subscribe to audio visual materials, the district court held that he was not a “Consumer” and dismissed the complaint; a decision that the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 645.
As he did at the trial court level, the Plaintiff urged a broad reading of “Consumer” under the VPPA; “claiming that it covers anyone who (1) subscribes to “goods or services” from (2) a “video tape service provider.” Id. at 649. In rejecting Plaintiff’s argument, the Sixth Circuit relied on arguments rooted in statutory interpretation principles. Recognizing that it is “a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme” the Sixth Circuit declined to follow the Plantiffs’ invitation to “scrutinize [the] statute atomistically” or “chop[] it up and giving each word the broadest possible meaning.” Id. at 650. Thus, the court reasoned that a person is a “Consumer” only when he subscribes to “goods or services” in the nature of “video cassette tapes or similar audio-visual materials.” Id.
As the Salazar court explicitly noted, their decision conflicted with the Second and Seventh Circuits’ approach to this issue, which held that the term “Consumer” should be understood to broadly encompass a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of any of the provider’s goods or services—whether they are audiovisual in nature or not. Id. at 652.
The Supreme Court’s impending review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Salazar v. Paramount Global presents an important chance to clarify the scope of the VPPA in the digital age. At issue is whether the statute’s protections extend only to those who access audiovisual content directly, or whether they also cover broader engagements with service providers. This development is significant because the VPPA has become a template for how courts and regulators think about privacy harms tied to specific types of content, not just general-purpose data collection. By deciding who qualifies as a “Consumer” under the statute, the Supreme Court will signal how far legacy privacy laws can be stretched to address modern tracking technologies, cookies, and cross-site analytics. A narrow reading could limit one of the few federal privacy tools available to plaintiffs to challenge the sharing of viewing and engagement data, while a broader reading could embolden plaintiffs’ lawyers to test similar theories under other sector-specific privacy statutes and state consumer protection laws.
The Court’s interpretation will have significant implications for both Consumers and digital platforms, determining whether the VPPA remains a robust shield for privacy in an era of pervasive online data collection—or whether its reach will be narrowly confined to traditional, content-specific subscriptions.
To keep up with the latest in this area, please sign up to receive these posts via email, and you can follow Taft Privacy, Security, and Artificial Intelligence on LinkedIn for even more. Should you need counsel in any of these areas, Taft’s attorneys are ready to assist.