A circuit split centering on interpretations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) of 1988 suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could decide to review two cases about the statute simultaneously.
VPPA Lawsuits
The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), originally passed in the VHS era, is being used to sue websites and applications such as Meta and TikTok that track and share viewing data. Plaintiffs claim these tools transmit personally identifiable information without proper consent. Courts are divided on how the VPPA applies to modern web behavior, creating uncertainty for publishers and adtech providers. This page follows key lawsuits, legal interpretations, and compliance risks tied to VPPA claims.
The plaintiff in a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) case against satirical news site The Onion voluntarily dropped the complaint in a court document Friday. No reason for the dismissal was given.
While recent court decisions have added to a circuit split on the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) of 1988 (see 2508190026), some have also introduced notable interpretations of how the statute should apply, privacy lawyers said in interviews with Privacy Daily.
This month's D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper further widened the circuit split on the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), increasing the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the 1988 federal statute, privacy lawyers said in interviews with Privacy Daily. The D.C., 2nd, 6th and 7th circuits have ruled on VPPA cases recently without much uniformity.
Privacy Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching the title or clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
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).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's dismissal of a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) case Tuesday means there is a circuit split on the definition of consumer under the federal statute, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court will likely break that split, said plaintiff Michael Salazar in a supplemental brief to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday. Because of this, Salazar said the high court should deny the NBA's petition in Salazar v. NBA to review a decision from the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that affirmed Salazar but that the basketball league said unfairly expanded the scope of the 1988 VPPA (see 2503190047).
The definition of consumer under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) is narrow, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Tuesday. The appeals court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a case against the Washington Examiner that alleged it violated the federal statute. A concurring opinion from one of the judges said the VPPA seems outdated and suggested that consumer was not the only term in the VPPA that should be narrowly defined.
The 'ordinary person' standard is a commonsense approach to Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) cases that is gaining support from several U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, said Troutman Pepper lawyers in a Monday blog post. Most recently, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' denial of an en banc review of its May 2025 ruling in Solomon v. Flipps Media bolstered the approach.
Satirical news site The Onion asked a federal court Friday to drop a case against it alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), on the grounds that the plaintiff lacks standing and because "courts are beginning to 'shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims.'” Case 25-05471 alleges the news site deployed a tracking pixel on its site that transmitted a subscriber's personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties without his prior knowledge or consent (see 2505200012).