{"ID":63881,"name":"Salazar v. Paramount Global","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/cases\/2025\/25-459","view_count":0,"docket_number":"25-459","additional_docket_numbers":null,"manner_of_jurisdiction":"Writ of \u003Ci\u003Ecertiorari\u003C\/i\u003E","first_party":"Michael Salazar","second_party":"Paramount Global, dba 247Sports","timeline":[{"event":"Granted","dates":[1769407200],"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_timeline\/case_timeline\/55781"}],"lower_court":{"ID":11,"name":"United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/taxonomy\/term\/11"},"facts_of_the_case":"\u003Cp\u003EMichael 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\u2019s tracking Pixel on the website, which collected and transmitted to Facebook information about Salazar\u2019s video-viewing activity, including the video content name, its URL, and Salazar\u0027s Facebook ID. This disclosure allegedly occurred without Salazar\u2019s knowledge or consent.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EIn 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\u2019s 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 \u201cconsumer\u201d 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.\u003C\/p\u003E\n","question":"\u003Cp\u003EDoes the phrase \u201cgoods or services from a video tape service provider,\u201d as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act\u2019s definition of \u201cconsumer,\u201d refer to all of a video tape service provider\u2019s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services?\u003C\/p\u003E\n","conclusion":null,"advocates":null,"oral_argument_audio":null,"citation":{"volume":null,"page":null,"year":null,"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_citation\/case_citation\/28141"},"decisions":null,"first_party_label":"Petitioner","second_party_label":"Respondent","heard_by":[null],"decided_by":null,"term":"2025","location":null,"opinion_announcement":null,"description":"A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase \u201cgoods or services from a video tape service provider,\u201d as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act\u2019s definition of \u201cconsumer,\u201d refers to all of a video tape service provider\u2019s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.","written_opinion":null,"related_cases":null,"justia_url":"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/2025\/25-459\/","argument2_url":null}