Washington – The Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether a decades-old law protecting privacy of video cassette rentals should be applied to online multimedia content and advertising. The Video Privacy Protection Act, passed after a judicial nominee’s history of video rentals was publicly reported, is the focus of the case in Salazar v. Paramount Global.
The argument centered on the parties’ differing views of key statutory terms, such as “consumer,” “video tape service provider,” and “personally identifiable information.” Counsel for Salazar argued for a broad approach for each that would effectively decouple the word “consumer” from the type of goods or services purchased and allow liability for transactions of goods or services outside of video. In contrast, counsel for Paramount argued for a narrower view that defines “consumer” as one who transacts for audiovisual goods and services and thus allows the statute to operate more consistently, coherently, and in accord with Congress’s purpose in writing the law.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and the Software & Information Industry Association filed a joint amicus brief in Salazar v. Paramount Global. The brief said the VPPA was never intended to become a sweeping internet law that should be applied to all digital services that have ads or multimedia content.
The tech associations’ amicus brief noted that incidental video clips provided online, sometimes as ads before a viewer’s requested content, have little in common with the rental of video cassette tapes.
The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Matt Schruers:
“It was encouraging to hear discussion around whether Congress intended to regulate consumers’ interaction with future digital audiovisual content like online ads when it protected privacy around video rentals in 1988. The appeals court was correct in denying the plaintiff’s attempt to transform this law into a new ticket for sweeping nationwide internet class actions, and we look forward to hearing the Justices’ ruling in this case.”
