The Supreme Court is reviving a “Blockbuster-era” privacy law — and the outcome could shake targeted ads online

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case built on a 1988 privacy law originally passed after a newspaper obtained Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental records — and modern business groups say the ruling could ripple into today’s targeted online advertising economy.

At issue is the Video Privacy Protection Act, a law that makes it illegal for “video tape service providers” to disclose personally identifiable information about what a consumer watched without consent. The penalties can be steep: $2,500 per violation, plus legal fees for successful plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed by Michael Salazar, who sued Paramount Global in 2022 in federal court in Nashville. Salazar subscribed to 247Sports, Paramount’s free email newsletter about college athletics, and said he used the subscription to watch sports videos online. He alleged Paramount installed Meta’s tracking “Pixel” on the 247Sports site, allowing information — including his video viewing history — to be disclosed to Facebook without consent.

Paramount’s legal argument attacks the case at the definition level: it says a written newsletter is not “audiovisual material,” and subscribing to an email newsletter doesn’t make someone a “consumer” under the statute. Paramount also argued courts have held that certain computer code used in targeted advertising doesn’t count as personally identifiable information in the way the law intended. Meta is not a party to the case and did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

So why is the Supreme Court taking it? Because the lower courts are split. Reuters reported a 2–2 split among federal appellate courts, the kind of deadlock that often triggers Supreme Court review. The bigger question is what counts as being a “consumer” of a “videotape service provider” in 2026, when video can be a clip on a sports site, a livestream, or a short highlight embedded in an article.

Privacy lawyers say that ambiguity is exactly why this case matters. If the court adopts a broad reading, it could open the door to more lawsuits over tracking tools on sites that offer video content. If it adopts a narrow reading, it could shut down a growing category of privacy claims that plaintiffs’ lawyers have been filing across industries.

Those lawsuits have already been booming and cooling in cycles. Reuters cited an analysis by the Duane Morris law firm that found 78 class actions were filed under the law in 2025, down from 116 in 2024 and a peak of 150 in 2022. The reason so many companies get dragged in is simple: lots of sites offer newsletters, lots of sites offer videos, and lots of sites use ad-tech tracking tools.

Business groups are watching because targeted advertising pays for huge chunks of the modern internet. They argue a plaintiff win could effectively prohibit targeted ads and disrupt the revenue model for countless websites. Privacy advocates, meanwhile, see the opposite: a rare chance to force clearer consent rules in a world where “watching a clip” can quietly become a data trail shared with third parties.

What happens next will be watched closely by media companies, sports sites, streaming services, and any business that embeds video and uses ad tracking. The case is a reminder that a law written for VHS tapes can become a weapon — or a shield — in the streaming era.