Salazar v. Paramount Global

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 13, 2026

Docket / citation: 25-459

Summary

Salazar alleges that Paramount transmitted his 247Sports.com video-viewing information to Facebook without consent through a web-tracking tool. The district court dismissed his VPPA class action, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed because his newsletter subscription did not establish VPPA consumer status. The Supreme Court granted review of the consumer-definition question, with oral argument listed for October 14, 2026.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Class action filed in September 2022 in the Middle District of Tennessee; dismissed by the district court; dismissal affirmed by the Sixth Circuit; Supreme Court review granted, with oral argument listed for October 14, 2026.

Reported Holding

The Sixth Circuit held that Salazar’s free newsletter subscription did not make him a consumer under the VPPA because consumer status requires renting, purchasing, or subscribing to audiovisual goods or services. The excerpt reports no Supreme Court merits holding.

What the Court Decided

The district court found standing but dismissed the complaint on the VPPA consumer-definition issue. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on April 3, 2025, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 26, 2026.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt does not report a Supreme Court merits decision or a finding that Paramount improperly disclosed information under the VPPA.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• Meta Pixel
• Website video tracking
• Online newsletter
• Online video viewing
• Facebook ID
• Video-watching history
• Facebook tracking pixel
• Website tracking software
• Targeted advertising
• Facebook web-tracking tool

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta, Facebook.

Statutes Invoked

• Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710
• Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710
• Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710
• Video Privacy Protection Act
• Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Alleged nonconsensual disclosure of video-viewing history under the VPPA
• VPPA disclosure of personally identifiable information
• Scope of the VPPA definition of consumer
• Video Privacy Protection Act claim
• Alleged disclosure of personally identifiable information without written consent under the Video Privacy Protection Act
• VPPA claim concerning alleged disclosure of video-viewing information without consent

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459 — Question Presented Under the Video Privacy Protection Act — Supreme Court of the United States · Tier A (Primary authority)
• SCOTUS to Resolve Circuit Split on VPPA “Consumer” Definition in Salazar V. Paramount Global — Electronic Privacy Information Center · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-09-21
• Salazar v. Paramount Global — Cornell Law School — Legal Information Institute · Tier C (Professional analysis)
• Supreme Court VPPA Case Salazar v. Paramount: Argument Preview — Recording Law · Tier E (General web) · 2026-10-10
• The Supreme Court Digital-Privacy Case That Could Go Either Way — The New Republic · Tier E (General web) · 2026-09-23

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.