133 F.4th 642
6th Cir.2025Background
- Michael Salazar sued Paramount Global under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), alleging his video viewing information from 247Sports.com was disclosed to Facebook without consent.
- Salazar accessed videos on 247Sports.com while logged into Facebook and had subscribed to a 247Sports.com online newsletter, providing his email and IP address.
- The district court found Salazar had standing (a concrete privacy harm) but dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, holding he was not a "consumer" under the VPPA as his newsletter subscription did not involve audio-visual materials.
- Salazar appealed, arguing the VPPA’s definition of "consumer" is not limited to subscribers of audio-visual goods or services.
- The majority affirmed the district court, reading the VPPA’s protections as limited to consumers of audio-visual goods or services from a video tape service provider.
- Judge Bloomekatz dissented, siding with rulings from other circuits that interpreted "consumer" to include any subscriber to a good or service from such a provider, not just audio-visual content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of "Consumer" in VPPA | A "consumer" includes any subscriber to any good or service from a video tape service provider. | "Consumer" must be limited to those subscribing to audio-visual goods or services. | Affirmed lower court: consumer must subscribe to audio-visual materials. |
| Article III Standing | Disclosure of video viewing constitutes concrete privacy harm for standing. | No challenge on appeal; argument abandoned. | Standing confirmed as concrete privacy injury. |
| Sufficiency of Complaint | Subscription to the newsletter qualifies as subscription to a service, making Salazar a "consumer" under VPPA. | The newsletter is not an audio-visual good/service, so Salazar is not a "consumer". | Dismissal proper; newsletter not shown to be audio-visual material. |
| Leave to Amend Complaint | Should be allowed to amend to allege the newsletter is audio-visual material. | Did not properly move to amend or explain changes. | No abuse of discretion in denying amendment; request too cursory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (standing is a constitutional minimum requirement in federal court)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (privacy harms like disclosure of information can be concrete injury for standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (discusses concreteness requirement for Article III injury)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standard for Article III standing)
- King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (statutes must be read as a whole, not in isolated parts)