I remember renting VHS tapes. Walking into a video store, handing over my card, picking something off the shelf. It felt private. Nobody's business what I watched on a Friday night.
Turns out Congress agreed with me — way back in 1988. And now that old law is about to get tested against an internet nobody back then could've imagined.
On October 14, the Supreme Court hears a case that could decide whether websites can legally track what you watch and feed that information to companies like Meta for targeted ads. It's called Salazar v. Paramount Global, and depending on who you ask, it's either going to protect your privacy or break the business model that keeps half the internet free.
Why a 1988 Law Is Suddenly a Big Deal
Here's the backstory, and it's a good one. In the 1980s, a newspaper called the Washington City Paper got hold of a list of 146 movies that Robert Bork — Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee — had rented from his local video store. They published it. People were furious. If a Supreme Court nominee's rental history wasn't safe, whose was?
So Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act. It made it illegal for a "video tape service provider" to hand out your personal viewing history without permission. Simple enough — in 1988.
Fast forward almost 40 years. Nobody rents VHS tapes anymore. But plenty of us watch videos on websites, often without paying a dime. And that's exactly where this case lives.
A Free Sports Site, a Facebook Login, and a Lawsuit
Michael Salazar, a guy in California, signed up for a free digital subscription to 247Sports.com, a site owned by Paramount Global. He used it to watch college sports videos. He was also logged into Facebook at the time.
Like a lot of ad-supported websites, 247Sports has tracking tools built into its pages. Those tools quietly send data about what you're watching to Meta, Facebook's parent company, which uses it to serve you eerily specific ads later.
Salazar says that's illegal under the 1988 law. He's trying to bring a class action against Paramount, arguing his video-watching habits and personal information got shared without his consent.
Paramount's answer? Basically — come on. Salazar watched free content. He didn't rent a cassette tape. Their lawyers call it a "completely different business" and say turning a "Blockbuster-era statute" into an internet privacy law would hand Salazar a "massive windfall" he doesn't deserve.
The Argument Comes Down to One Phrase
The whole fight hinges on three words: "goods or services." The law protects any "subscriber of goods or services" from a video provider.
Salazar's side says that covers everything a company offers — including a free newsletter subscription that gets you access to videos.
Paramount says read it in context, and it clearly means subscribing to actual video content, not just signing up for something free.
A lower appeals court already sided with Paramount and tossed the case, ruling that a free newsletter isn't the same as a video subscription.
Why This Matters Way Beyond One Sports Website
This isn't just about Salazar and 247Sports. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the court that a ruling for Salazar could unravel the targeted-advertising model that funds a huge chunk of the free internet. News organizations backed Paramount too, saying tracking viewers is how they afford to give away content.
On the other side, privacy advocates like Sara Geoghegan of the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue there's nothing stopping companies from advertising responsibly — getting consent, using their own first-party data — without quietly funneling your viewing habits to a third party.
And honestly? Pew Research backs up why people care. More than seven in ten Americans say they have little to no control over what companies do with their data. That's not a small number. That's most of us shrugging and hoping for the best every time we click "accept all cookies."
I've spent years choosing where I go and what I do without asking permission from an algorithm. Maybe that's why this case gets under my skin a little. Privacy and freedom aren't that different — both come down to who gets to make the choice.
A decision is expected by the end of June. Until then, maybe pay a little more attention to what you're watching — and who might be watching you watch it.
Source: azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic
Our last article on this: Seven Fake Journalists, Zero Real People: How Iran Used AI to Plant Propaganda in Global Media
