iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The Supreme Court heard arguments on October 14, 2026, in Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports (docket No. 25-459), a case that could determine when the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to websites that track what visitors watch. The dispute is not whether every video-tracking tool is illegal. It is whether a person who subscribes to a website’s newsletter, rather than to its video service, can still qualify as a VPPA-protected consumer when the site sends viewing information to Facebook for advertising.
The Court is reviewing a Sixth Circuit ruling that dismissed Salazar’s claim. A decision is expected by summer 2027, although the Court has not announced a release date or indicated how it will rule.
What happened to Michael Salazar
Salazar subscribed to an online newsletter from 247Sports.com in 2022. While logged into Facebook, he watched videos on the site. He alleges that Paramount used Facebook’s tracking pixel to transmit the video’s title or URL together with his Facebook identifier, without his knowledge or consent. That information could allow Facebook to associate his viewing activity with an advertising profile.
The alleged transmission is the factual setting for the legal question. The Supreme Court is not deciding a general challenge to internet analytics or ruling that all sharing of viewing data violates federal law.
#1 Best Overall
- Privacy Protection and Lens Care: Avoid private information from hacking while preventing dust-fall and scratching of the camera lens
- Multiple Compatibility: Suitable for Logitech webcam C920x, C920, C922, C930e, C922x Pro Stream HD Camera
- Artful Design: Modeled and designed exclusively to fit the above devices from Logitech and make it more stylish
- Easy Flip Mechanism: Can be turned 180 angle and easily take the cover off when flipping more than 180
- Simple Installation: Attaches securely to your Logitech webcam without leaving residue, allowing for quick and hassle-free setup
The VPPA question before the justices
Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988 after public disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video-rental history. The statute defines a consumer as “any renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” A 2013 amendment permits disclosure when the consumer gives written consent. UPI reports that the law allows damages of up to $2,500 per consumer.
The central interpretive issue is the phrase “goods or services.” Does it cover every product or service offered by a business that provides videos, including a newsletter? Or does it cover only an audiovisual good or service, such as a video rental, subscription or purchase?
Rank #2
- Privacy Protection: CloudValley webcam cover is designed for those who prioritize privacy, security, and peace of mind when using laptops, tablets, and computers
- Fashion Design: The space aluminum alloy webcam cover features a subtle design which compliments the beautiful aesthetic of top devices
- Ultra-Thin Design: Measures only 0.023 (0.6 mm) inch thin, ensuring it does not interfere with closing your laptop or device while providing reliable camera coverage
- Broad Compatibility: Works flawlessly with most laptops (MacBook, HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Lenovo), All-in-One PCs and leading tablets including iPad, Surface Pro, Galaxy Tab, Fire HD, and Google Pixel Tablet
- Simple to Use: Only need to align to the webcam, attach and press it firmly for 15 seconds. Does not interfere with web use or indicator light
How the lower court ruled
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit adopted the narrower view and affirmed dismissal of Salazar’s case. Its decision, in Sixth Circuit No. 23-5748, was issued April 3, 2025. The court treated Salazar’s newsletter subscription as outside the VPPA’s audiovisual-subscription requirement, even though he watched videos from the same provider.
The Supreme Court’s docket identifies that interpretation as the issue under review. The justices must decide what Congress meant by “consumer” in a statute written for a 1980s video-rental market and applied today to websites, logged-in users and advertising pixels.
Rank #3
- Note: Not suitable for MacBooks released after 2023 or devices with a protruding front camera; Not applicable to full-screen or notch-style tempered glass screen protectors; Do not use on the rear camera of the phone.
- 💻 Why Do You Need a Webcam Cover Slide? — Safeguard your privacy by covering your webcam with our reliable webcam cover when not in use. Don't let anyone secretly watch you. Stay protected!
- ✅ Thin & Stylish — Enhance your laptop's functionality and aesthetics with our 0.027" ultra-thin webcam covers. Seamlessly close your laptop while adding a touch of sophistication.
- ✅ Fits Most Devices — Compatible with laptops, phones, tablets, desktops! Keep your privacy intact on Ap/ple, Mac/Book, iPh/one, iP/ad, H/P, L/novo, De/ll, Ac/er, As/us, Sa/msung devices.
- ✅ 365 Days Protection — Our upgraded 3.0 adhesive ensures a strong hold that won't damage your equipment. Experience reliable, long-term privacy protection day in and day out.
The competing readings
| Issue | Salazar’s position | Paramount’s position |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory text | The definition says “goods or services” and contains no audiovisual-only limitation. A newsletter subscription therefore can establish consumer status. | The phrase should be read in the context of a video-service law and limited to audiovisual goods or services. |
| 1988 context versus modern sites | Congress used broad language, and the law should apply when a modern provider discloses personally identifying viewing information. | Applying the statute to any business with videos would turn a video-rental law into a broad and incoherent internet-privacy regime. |
| Consent and identifying data | The alleged Facebook pixel transmission included the video title or URL and a Facebook identifier without consent. | The case could impose liability on ordinary advertising and measurement practices across many industries unless the Court limits the statute. |
| Financial exposure | VPPA remedies should remain available when the statutory elements are met. | The law’s harsh per-consumer damages could create disproportionate exposure for companies that never sold video subscriptions. |
Salazar’s lawyer Joshua Hammack wrote that there is “simply no basis to rewrite the VPPA’s definition of ‘consumer’ to impose a limitation that appears nowhere in the text.” Paramount’s lawyers countered that his interpretation would “transform a 1988 video-rental statute into an unworkable Internet-privacy regime of broad, yet incoherent, scope backed by harsh penalties.”
Why the newsletter subscription matters
The subscription distinction could control the outcome. Salazar was not alleged to have rented or purchased a video. His relationship with the provider began with a newsletter, while the alleged disclosure concerned videos he watched later. If the Court requires an audiovisual subscription, many visitors who receive newsletters, create general accounts or use other non-video services may fall outside the VPPA even when a site records and shares their viewing history.
Rank #4
- 【Premium Webcam Cover】This webcam privacy cover is an accessory of computer webcam. No worry about interfering with web camera lens use or indicator light; No damage to your device in any way as well. A helpful privacy protector and dust separator
- 【Privacy Protector】Slide the web camera cover over your webcam lens when not in use, and prevents web hackers from Spying on you. It is perfect to provide privacy security and peace of mind to individuals, groups, organizations, companies and governments. It also protects your camera lens from dust, and keeps it in high-definition resolution all the ways
- 【Durable Material】The web cam cover is made of high-strength plastic, which ensures that your privacy is protected for a long and lasting period of time. The back of the web camera privacy cover slide also has a strong 3M adhesive layer. It helps the privacy protector stick firmly to your device. The most convenient, super thin design, and extra mini size, make it perfectly combine with your devices
- 【Wide Compatibility】This webcam cover is compatible with most popular webcams with flat area surrounding lens or with protruding lens, such as Logitech HD Pro Webcam C920 C920x C930e and C922, Logitech C615 and C270 (NOT fit Logitech C910, B910, C310). It can be also used as a cover for the peep hole on door
- 【For Logitech Webcam Cover】 The streamcam cover kit comes with 2 pack. Please clean the lens surface before applying. Make sure the mounting surface is cleaned completely so that it sticks properly and firmly
If the Court accepts Salazar’s broader reading, a person could potentially qualify through any subscription to a provider that also presents videos, provided the other VPPA requirements are satisfied. That would not automatically make every tracking practice unlawful; plaintiffs would still need to establish the statute’s elements, including a disclosure of personally identifying viewing information and the absence of valid consent.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsKey dates in the case and the law
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1988 | Congress enacted the VPPA after controversy over disclosure of Robert Bork’s video-rental history, according to contemporaneous accounts summarized by UPI and The Associated Press. |
| 2013 | Congress amended the statute to allow written consumer consent for disclosure, according to UPI. |
| 2022 | Salazar subscribed to the 247Sports newsletter and watched videos while logged into Facebook. |
| April 3, 2025 | The Sixth Circuit, in No. 23-5748, affirmed dismissal based on its audiovisual-subscription interpretation. |
| October 14, 2026 | The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in docket No. 25-459. |
| Expected by summer 2027 | The Court is expected to issue its decision; the sources do not provide a specific date or predict the result. |
What the ruling could change
For people who watch videos online
The decision may clarify whether a newsletter, general account or another non-video subscription can give a viewer VPPA status. Until the Court rules, the Sixth Circuit’s narrower interpretation governs in that circuit, while courts elsewhere may analyze the statute differently.
Best Value
- 【Protect Privacy Security】Focusing on network security, now we can easily and effectively protect personal and family privacy security , Just gently slide the slide and close the camera, you can stop the intrusion of hackers.
- 【 Ultra Thin Design】The new ultra-thin design, with a thickness of only 0.022 inches, is made of flexible ABS material and is not fragile. Will not affect the closing of the laptops and scratch the laptops.
- 【Easy to install】 Strong adhesive makes the cover not fall, keep the screen clean and free of stains during installation, tear off the adhesive tape on the back, align it with our camera, and press hard for 10 seconds to work.
- 【Compatible with 】Compatible with camera for Laptop, tablet, computers, Echo Show and Apple Devices,as: MacBook Pro,Macbook Air,iMac ,Mac mini,iPad,MacBook Air, iPhone 6/7/8 Plus etc front camera .
- [What you get] 6 pack black webcam covers.
For publishers and advertisers
Companies that use pixels or similar tools will be watching how the Court defines a “consumer,” what counts as personally identifying information, and how consent works in a modern advertising system. Justice Elena Kagan summarized one practical option during argument: “Going forward, you have two very simple solutions. One is to get consent. Easy enough. People do it every day.” The opinion could nevertheless leave questions about the form, timing and scope of consent for future litigation.
For privacy litigation
A broad interpretation could allow claims involving non-video subscriptions and increase potential damages calculated per affected consumer. A narrow interpretation would preserve a closer link between VPPA protection and an audiovisual subscription, limiting the statute’s reach but potentially leaving some online viewing disclosures outside its coverage.
Quick Recap
What readers should understand now
- The case concerns the statutory definition of “consumer,” not a blanket ban on video analytics or targeted advertising.
- The alleged disclosure involved a Facebook tracking pixel, a video’s title or URL, and a Facebook identifier.
- The Sixth Circuit required an audiovisual subscription; the Supreme Court is reviewing that requirement.
- The Court’s eventual ruling will determine how far the 1988 statute extends to websites that combine newsletters, video and advertising technology.
- No decision date or outcome has been announced. A ruling is expected by summer 2027.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
