NBA Blasts Opponent in VPPA Case, Again Urges SCOTUS Review is 'Increasingly Obvious'
The NBA doubled down Friday on its stance that a U.S. Supreme Court review of Salazar v. NBA is needed to settle differences between circuit courts concerning the application of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which was intended to protect the privacy of consumers who rented videos (see 2503190047).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
Earlier in the week, Salazar urged the high court to reject the NBA's approach that its justices should hear the case (see 2508130055). In March, the NBA asked SCOTUS justices to review the decision from the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that the association viewed as an unfair expansion of the VPPA's scope.
In that case, Salazar alleged that after he registered for a free NBA newsletter, the league violated the VPPA by disclosing without consent his personal information to Facebook, including videos he watched on the website.
Salazar argued that he was a subscriber in his original complaint, since he had signed up for a newsletter, though the subscription didn't give him special access to videos on the NBA website. The 2nd Circuit agreed with Salazar in October 2024, which privacy lawyers said broadened the definition of consumer and opened the door to increased litigation under the act (see 2501100009).
In its plea Friday, the NBA argued again that a Supreme Court review of the case is sensible. Salazar fails to explain "why he thinks this case is a bad vehicle [for the Supreme Court], even after the NBA explained in its reply why his arguments make no sense," and "they still don’t. In fact, they make even less sense now, given what Salazar doesn’t address in his supplemental brief."
"Salazar has conceded that there’s a real, acknowledged, and deepening 2–2 split" of circuit courts, the NBA's brief added. "For whatever reason, though, he just doesn’t want the [Supreme] Court to take up the important question presented in this case. Never mind that whatever the Court says ... would clearly resolve not just this case but also the D.C., Sixth, and Seventh Circuits’ cases, as well as the pending Ninth Circuit case."
The NFL, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) have submitted amicus briefs supporting the NBA, asking the Supreme Court to review the case and reverse the 2nd Circuit's ruling (see 2505020048). The NBA has consistently asserted that a circuit split makes the case a good vehicle for high court review (see 2507160026), which some privacy lawyers agree with (see 2504150047).