Salazar v. Paramount Global
Petitioner Michael Salazar · Respondent Paramount Global, dba 247Sports
- From
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- How it got here
- writ of <i>certiorari</i>
Does the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer,” refer to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services?
Question before the CourtWhat happened
Michael Salazar subscribed to an online newsletter from 247Sports.com in 2022, a website owned by Paramount Global that covers college sports recruiting. While logged into his Facebook account, Salazar watched videos on the 247Sports.com website. Paramount had installed Facebook’s tracking Pixel on the website, which collected and transmitted to Facebook information about Salazar’s video-viewing activity, including the video content name, its URL, and Salazar's Facebook ID. This disclosure allegedly occurred without Salazar’s knowledge or consent. In September 2022, Salazar filed a class action lawsuit against Paramount Global in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, claiming violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The district court denied Paramount’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing but granted its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that Salazar was not a “consumer” under the VPPA because his newsletter subscription did not qualify as subscribing to audiovisual goods or services. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Case path
- Jan 26, 2026 granted