Supreme Court Takes Up Paramount VPPA Case as California DOJ Targets Surveillance Pricing

Want to receive these privacy recaps in your inbox each week? Subscribe here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that will determine whether subscribing to a non-audiovisual online newsletter qualifies an individual as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act. At the same time, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced a Department of Justice investigation into “surveillance pricing,” signaling heightened scrutiny of how businesses use personal information under the CCPA’s purpose limitation principle.

United States

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Paramount VPPA Case.

The United States Supreme Court will decide whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)’s definition of “consumer,” refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services. The case is Salazar v. Paramount Global, originating from the Middle District of Tennessee. 

The Plaintiff in the case alleged that a Facebook tracking pixel installed on 247Sports.com enabled Paramount to track and disclose his history of videos viewed on the site, linked to his Facebook ID, to Facebook without his consent. The plaintiff subscribed to a 247sports.com online newsletter, which he alleged was sufficient to make him a “consumer” under the VPPA. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that, to qualify as a “consumer”, “a plaintiff must be a subscriber of goods and services in the nature of audio-video content.” 

Although the plaintiff watched videos on 247sports.com, he failed to allege that an individual could only access the video content from 247sports.com through signing up for the newsletter or that he accessed audiovisual content through the newsletter. Therefore, the court held that because the newsletter was not audio-visual content, signing up for it did not make him an audio-video content subscriber and thus did not qualify him as a “consumer” under the VPPA. On appeal, the 6th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, and the plaintiff appealed again to the Supreme Court. 

TAKEAWAY

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will resolve a 2-2 circuit split. The DC Circuit has aligned with the 6th Circuit’s interpretation. Conversely, the 2nd and 7th Circuits have held that signing up for an online newsletter is sufficient to qualify an individual as a “consumer” under the VPPA, even if the online newsletter contains no audiovisual materials and the newsletter subscription is not necessary to access the video content at issue. 

The outcome of this decision will either significantly broaden or significantly narrow the scope of VPPA litigation nationwide. 

United states

California DOJ To Conduct Surveillance Pricing Sweep.

California Attorney General Bonta announced that the Department of Justice will send letters to businesses with a significant online presence in the retail, grocery, and hotel sectors. The letters will investigate these businesses’ use of personal information to set targeted, individualized prices for goods and services, a practice referred to as “surveillance pricing.”  

The press release cites the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)’s “purpose limitation principle,” which limits a business’s use of personal information to purposes consistent with consumers’ reasonable expectations.  According to AG Bonta, surveillance pricing may violate the purpose limitation principle and the CCPA “when conducted without disclosure or beyond reasonable expectations.”

TAKEAWAY

The purpose limitation principle has arisen in AG enforcement outside the context of surveillance pricing, which may provide some insight into this upcoming investigation. 

Most notably, in July 2025, AG Bonta announced a settlement with Healthline Media stemming from allegations, among others, that Healthline’s data sharing was inconsistent with consumers’ reasonable expectations. Specifically, Healthline shared article titles with third parties, revealing that a person may have already been diagnosed with a medical condition (e.g., articles such as “You’ve Been Newly Diagnosed with MS. What’s Next?”). 

The complaint alleged that Healthline could not establish that consumers reasonably expected it to share potentially health-related data. It cited factors listed by the CCPA regulations for determining whether data use is consistent with a consumer’s reasonable expectations, such as the “nature” of the personal information, the “specificity, explicitness, prominence, and clarity of disclosures,” and how apparent the involvement of service providers, contractors, third parties, or other entities in collecting or processing the data is to the consumer. 

Applying these factors, the complaint pointed out that Healthline’s privacy policy never mentioned sharing article titles and that consumers would not see this sharing, which occurred only in the digital background. Therefore, the complaint alleged that Healthline failed to meet the purpose limitation principle. It will be interesting to learn how these factors apply to surveillance pricing. 

A LITTLE MORE PRIVACY, IF YOU PLEASE

• Deadline for CA Data Broker DROP Account Creation Has Passed
• Oregon DOJ Publishes Universal Opt-Out Guidance for Consumers
• FTC Posts Agenda for Consumer Injury Workshop
• Berlin Court Bans TikTok From Teen Personalized Advertising Without Parental Consent
• EDPB To Issue Children’s Data Privacy Guidance
• France and Canada DPAs Sign Declaration of Cooperation

A Little Privacy, Please weekly recaps are provided for general, informational purposes only, do not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon for legal decision-making. Please consult an attorney to determine how legal updates may impact you or your business.